I'm going with the the M2. That thing is a beast and is so powerful to use it on people is considered 'inhumane'. It's been in service since 1933 and will continue to be for a long time because no one can invent anything better.
That and it's much more versatile than the MG42 because the 12.7mm round is much more powerful than the 7.92mm. Downside is that it's so heavy it's very hard to operate it any other way than vehicle mounted.
I see what your saying about the M2, but the MG 42s sound is terrifing. Hearing it up close isn't that bad get about 50 meters away and it is terrifing.
.50 cal rounds are very good at persuading people.
I think i'll lend my support to the "Ma Deuce". That design hasn't changed much since it's inception. Plus its built tougher than the MG42 (which is a Hell of a gun too).
Service length recommends the M2. It's been in use for over half a century, and is still WIDELY used.
The MG42 has a great reputation, and it shot very fast and all, but really rate of fire isn't everything, or even necessarily desirable in a machine gun.
I swing back and forth between the M2 and the MG34. Ma Deuce throws some pretty heft lead, and it is now the oldest piece of armament that the US armed forces uses, and it has required almost no modification. The MG34 was light, maneuverable, and multi-role, in that it had a two stage trigger for accurate single-shots and full auto. It and its son, the MG42, were the basis for the development of the SAW, especially the M60.
I love the M2, but the sound from an MG42 would make me soil my pant if I was on the receiving end. The amount of rounds down range and the ease of use is why the MG42 is my choice.
George Spiggott wrote:I'll go with the MG34/MG42. It has influenced many famous post war machinegun designs and is even used in space by the USCM (true story).
Stormrider wrote:Plus its built tougher than the MG42 (which is a Hell of a gun too).
Um what do you mean by tougher????????
It's a more durable design. Plus it's rate of fire is such that swpping the barrels isn't as much of a priority as it is on the MG42.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:I'll go with the MG34/MG42. It has influenced many famous post war machinegun designs and is even used in space by the USCM (true story).
I used to be Mg3 gunner few years during my service in the army...
first: today it stills in use!!
second: despite its weight and crappy aspect, its fething reliable if you handle it correctly, most of jamming problems came after a cartridge that's bad fitted in the belt...
three: all we know it has a really high rate of fire (1250 RPM) but it can be adjusted to 800 RPM IIRC
Drawbacks: weight, and the fact that i you want a full operational gun must go with two guys carrying ammo and cooled barrels....
I used to be Mg3 gunner few years during my service in the army...
first: today it stills in use!!
second: despite its weight and crappy aspect, its fething reliable if you handle it correctly, most of jamming problems came after a cartridge that's bad fitted in the belt...
three: all we know it has a really high rate of fire (1250 RPM) but it can be adjusted to 800 RPM IIRC
Drawbacks: weight, and the fact that i you want a full operational gun must go with two guys carrying ammo and cooled barrels....
This is why I'm arguing M2.
It's older than the MG3, still in service, and has no technical problems to speak of. I've tried to jam one of those and haven't been able to.
I mean, it's a machine gun... just not a traditional one.
What???
Also the feeding problems were HUMAN error so you can't count those. the MG3 is an MG42 except that it fires at either 750 rpm or 550 rpm as I am told. Actually the M2HB design has changed a lot over 80 years the reason why? to make it simpler and to ease the manufacturing process, so the M2 of today is not the same as the M2 as back in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Just because a gun sounds scary, doesn't mean its the best. German Stuka dive bombers had little propellers on the landing gear to make a whirring/buzzing noise, it was scary as hell but wasn't the best dive bomber around.
I'll go with the classics, maxim, vickers, bren. Because they were the first true MG's around, they scared the feth out of anyone who saw them because no one had seen a machine gun up until that point.
Deff Jaw wrote:
Also the feeding problems were HUMAN error so you can't count those.
Yes you can. Often times the more difficult a gun is to use, the less useful the gun is.
Deff Jaw wrote:
Actually the M2HB design has changed a lot over 80 years the reason why? to make it simpler and to ease the manufacturing process, so the M2 of today is not the same as the M2 as back in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
halonachos wrote:Just because a gun sounds scary, doesn't mean its the best. German Stuka dive bombers had little propellers on the landing gear to make a whirring/buzzing noise, it was scary as hell but wasn't the best dive bomber around.
I'll go with the classics, maxim, vickers, bren. Because they were the first true MG's around, they scared the feth out of anyone who saw them because no one had seen a machine gun up until that point.
Oh, and it is MAXIM not MAXISM.
Personally i think that the thunk thunk thunk from the m2 is much more terrifying then the rip of an mg42 anyways
I used to be Mg3 gunner few years during my service in the army...
first: today it stills in use!!
second: despite its weight and crappy aspect, its fething reliable if you handle it correctly, most of jamming problems came after a cartridge that's bad fitted in the belt...
three: all we know it has a really high rate of fire (1250 RPM) but it can be adjusted to 800 RPM IIRC
Drawbacks: weight, and the fact that i you want a full operational gun must go with two guys carrying ammo and cooled barrels....
This is why I'm arguing M2.
It's older than the MG3, still in service, and has no technical problems to speak of. I've tried to jam one of those and haven't been able to.
i'm partially agree with you, in Spain M2 0.50 still in use too as a vehicle MG, i also have seen tripod ones, but is rare, too heavy for infantry use, and i have seen its more prone to jamming...at least the ones we had , otherwise, is an amazing gun too, just too heavy for the purposes i had been trained for.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:I'm going with the the M2. That thing is a beast and is so powerful to use it on people is considered 'inhumane'. It's been in service since 1933 and will continue to be for a long time because no one can invent anything better.
That and it's much more versatile than the MG42 because the 12.7mm round is much more powerful than the 7.92mm. Downside is that it's so heavy it's very hard to operate it any other way than vehicle mounted.
How can the M2 be more versatile than the MG42 if the M2 uses a rarer more expensive round and can only be used from fixed positions?
IAmTheWalrus wrote:I'm going with the the M2. That thing is a beast and is so powerful to use it on people is considered 'inhumane'. It's been in service since 1933 and will continue to be for a long time because no one can invent anything better.
That and it's much more versatile than the MG42 because the 12.7mm round is much more powerful than the 7.92mm. Downside is that it's so heavy it's very hard to operate it any other way than vehicle mounted.
How can the M2 be more versatile than the MG42 if the M2 uses a rarer more expensive round and can only be used from fixed positions?
A .50 round is expensive yes, but rare no. You can convert a MG42 to fire 7.62 X 51mm, just switch out the feed cover and barrel.
The MG42 has a high rate of fire, but the barrel overheats and has to be swapped out Not desirable when troops are storming the beach, ask the germans.
When the vickers was under going field trials, it was fired non stop for seven days, The men got fed up and were sent back to barracks
loki old fart wrote:The MG42 has a high rate of fire, but the barrel overheats and has to be swapped out Not desirable when troops are storming the beach, ask the germans.
When the vickers was under going field trials, it was fired non stop for seven days, The men got fed up and were sent back to barracks
All real machine guns have swappable barrels, including the Bren gun.
The best of them have water cooling too, if they are intended for sustained fire.
I have to vote for the MAG. Unlike the MG42 it actually shoots straight at about 800rpm (IIRC). I served with both .50 Brownings and the MAG and i was impressed by the trajectory of its projectiles. 7.62 mm is a heavy caliber for AP duties.
Oh, and the 0.50in will not harm any of the modern tanks and as far as the olders are concerned M113s are pierced by a stiff breeze , no need for bullets
If the MG42 is the best machine gun of all time, why is it not still in wide service?
The standard answer here is to point to the MG3, which is very similar.
But really, there's no arguing with Naziphiles. What's the best AR of all time? The Stg44. What's the best machine gun? The MG42. What's the best tank? The Panther. What's the best pistol? The Luger. The MP40. The Kar98. The Me262. The Swastika. Etc. Etc.
dogma wrote:If the MG42 is the best machine gun of all time, why is it not still in wide service?
And MG3 IS an MG42 except that the MG3 fires either at 550 rpm or 750 rpm. every single part is interchangeble.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Best MG: the 42
Best pistol: M1911A!
Best Rifle: Kar 98
Best AR: STG 44
THe only reason why the kar is there is because most bolt action rifles of today copy the design and imo it still is better, because the safety is done to the firing pin not to the trigger. You can pull the trigger all you want and it won't fire.
Kar 98 is not the best rifle. The Stg is not the best AR.
The tommy gun surpasses the Stg as do most modern assault rifles, and the M1 Garand is fantastic. That is if you want to stick with that era because there are better rifles.
Don't know about the colt being the best as the germans did have that one pistol that could go full automatic if it wanted too.
But there is a reason the germans lost the war, their guns were delicate. It is similar to the East German secret police vehicles, an american spy would drive a vehicle off road and the secret police wouldn't follow because their cars were delicate.
The MG42 was scary, but like I said so were most other MGs when they first came out as was the first tank to ever come out.
The barrel change allowed the enemy to quickly move from cover to cover and if it happens enough times you have an enemy that has caught up to you and probably will be tossing grenades at you soon.
halonachos wrote:Kar 98 is not the best rifle. The Stg is not the best AR.
The tommy gun surpasses the Stg as do most modern assault rifles, and the M1 Garand is fantastic. That is if you want to stick with that era because there are better rifles.
Don't know about the colt being the best as the germans did have that one pistol that could go full automatic if it wanted too.
But there is a reason the germans lost the war, their guns were delicate. It is similar to the East German secret police vehicles, an american spy would drive a vehicle off road and the secret police wouldn't follow because their cars were delicate.
The MG42 was scary, but like I said so were most other MGs when they first came out as was the first tank to ever come out.
The barrel change allowed the enemy to quickly move from cover to cover and if it happens enough times you have an enemy that has caught up to you and probably will be tossing grenades at you soon.
I'd proffer being in front of any machine gun is scary and not the place you'd want to be, even a French machine gun. I don't like someone throwing snow balls at me, much less a machine gun.
halonachos wrote:Kar 98 is not the best rifle. The Stg is not the best AR.
The tommy gun surpasses the Stg as do most modern assault rifles, and the M1 Garand is fantastic. That is if you want to stick with that era because there are better rifles.
Don't know about the colt being the best as the germans did have that one pistol that could go full automatic if it wanted too.
But there is a reason the germans lost the war, their guns were delicate. It is similar to the East German secret police vehicles, an american spy would drive a vehicle off road and the secret police wouldn't follow because their cars were delicate.
The MG42 was scary, but like I said so were most other MGs when they first came out as was the first tank to ever come out.
The Thompson IS not an assault rifle its an SMG. If you believe that the german guns are delicate the I wouldn't be able to break down a door with a kar 98, MP44, and an mg 42. If they were delicate then the german wouldn't have used them. The reason why the germans lost the war is because of hitler and going to war with too many countries at the same time. Take note you can beat down a door with a kar 98, MP44, and the MG42. if you don't believe then go do it yourself. The Thompson is a POS. The MP44 is always going to be the best because 1. hits as hard as the ak47 2. more reliable than the m16, but slightly less than the ak47 3. more controlable under auto fire 4. not as accurate as the m16 but no where near as inaccurate as the ak. German guns are usually better than ours the H&k 36 comes to mind and its a good gun. P.Y.H.O.o.Y.A. And I will always believe that the M1911A1 .45 is the best pistol and none of this 9mm which is a complete waste of time IMO. Also where are you from California, because your acting like one.
halonachos wrote:Kar 98 is not the best rifle. The Stg is not the best AR.
The tommy gun surpasses the Stg as do most modern assault rifles, and the M1 Garand is fantastic. That is if you want to stick with that era because there are better rifles.
Don't know about the colt being the best as the germans did have that one pistol that could go full automatic if it wanted too.
But there is a reason the germans lost the war, their guns were delicate. It is similar to the East German secret police vehicles, an american spy would drive a vehicle off road and the secret police wouldn't follow because their cars were delicate.
The MG42 was scary, but like I said so were most other MGs when they first came out as was the first tank to ever come out.
The Thompson IS not an assault rifle its an SMG. If you believe that the german guns are delicate the I wouldn't be able to break down a door with a kar 98, MP44, and an mg 42. If they were delicate then the german wouldn't have used them. The reason why the germans lost the war is because of hitler and going to war with too many countries at the same time. Take note you can beat down a door with a kar 98, MP44, and the MG42. if you don't believe then go do it yourself. The Thompson is a POS. The MP44 is always going to be the best because 1. hits as hard as the ak47 2. more reliable than the m16, but slightly less than the ak47 3. more controlable under auto fire 4. not as accurate as the m16 but no where near as inaccurate as the ak. German guns are usually better than ours the H&k 36 comes to mind and its a good gun. P.Y.H.O.o.Y.A. And I will always believe that the M1911A1 .45 is the best pistol and none of this 9mm which is a complete waste of time IMO. Also where are you from California, because your acting like one.
Actually most German weaponry was substantially more complex than its American/British counterpart, and notoriously susceptible to breaking down. The Jagdtiger is a good example vs. the JSII. There was a notation comparing the firing mechanisms for a US 75mm and a German 105mm. The American unit had something like 9 pieces, the German had something on the order of 36.
Whoa your talking about artillery and tanks. The german firearms are very well thought out. They are simple (surprising I know), easy to strip and maintain (the exceptions being the MG 34, Gewher 40, and 43). Also American, British, and Russian equipment broke down just as much as the Germans equipment just the germans didn't have as many spare parts. Wrecked tanks were the germans spare parts.
I'm sorry, please cite something where a Sherman broke down even 10% of the time to a Jagdtiger.
I don't agree. A 1911 is easier than pie to strip, especially compared to an actual Luger. A webley of course is the AK of revolvers, but thats a separate discussion. You can't tell me a schmeisser is less complex than Sten or US grease gun.
Mauser was thought out because its pre WWI. Yea, it'd better be less complex. But if its WWII there's nothing simple about it. Doesn't mean its worse but it does mean it will break down more. A lot more.
Yeah to be fair lads, this is a case of internet intellectualls looking at hard statistics and then decreeing which is best in a coldly logical manner, its all gak.
I was stood on a compound roof in Kajaki and i started getting brassed up by some pot-bellied Afghan idiot who was doing bursts of 20, and didnt look like he could hit a barn door sat on the handle, but when the rounds are crack thump pinging all over the place you dont think
"hmm.. this machine gun isnt that scary really, i mean, its not an MG-42... and as for its its muzzle velocity.."
Seriously, are you guys gaking me? Which one "sounds" the scariest?!
The best machine gun is the one with a gunner that keeps it nice and clean and looks after it properly, oils it correctly depending his location, practices with it plenty and LOVES shooting the bastard at people!
mattyrm wrote:Yeah to be fair lads, this is a case of internet intellectualls looking at hard statistics and then decreeing which is best in a coldly logical manner, its all gak.
I was stood on a compound roof in Kajaki and i started getting brassed up by some pot-bellied Afghan idiot who was doing bursts of 20, and didnt look like he could hit a barn door sat on the handle, but when the rounds are crack thump pinging all over the place you dont think
"hmm.. this machine gun isnt that scary really, i mean, its not an MG-42... and as for its its muzzle velocity.."
Seriously, are you guys gaking me? Which one "sounds" the scariest?!
The best machine gun is the one with a gunner that keeps it nice and clean and looks after it properly, oils it correctly depending his location, practices with it plenty and LOVES shooting the bastard at people! AND CAN OPEN A CAN OF BEER
HBO's "The Pacific" featured one of the more bad ass machine gunners in history, John Basilone, and featured his heroics, personal life, and ultimate sacrifice.
As for which machine gun's the best....its the one on your side
None of the MGs in call of duty MW2 were very good but I did have some luck with with AUG HBAR as a heavy rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Yeah to be fair lads, this is a case of internet intellectualls looking at hard statistics and then decreeing which is best in a coldly logical manner, its all gak.
I was stood on a compound roof in Kajaki and i started getting brassed up by some pot-bellied Afghan idiot who was doing bursts of 20, and didnt look like he could hit a barn door sat on the handle, but when the rounds are crack thump pinging all over the place you dont think
"hmm.. this machine gun isnt that scary really, i mean, its not an MG-42... and as for its its muzzle velocity.."
Seriously, are you guys gaking me? Which one "sounds" the scariest?!
The best machine gun is the one with a gunner that keeps it nice and clean and looks after it properly, oils it correctly depending his location, practices with it plenty and LOVES shooting the bastard at people!
Since we don't have a running statistic on the most clean machine gun on the planet COLD HAYRD FATCS will have to do sir!
Deff Jaw wrote:
And MG3 IS an MG42 except that the MG3 fires either at 550 rpm or 750 rpm. every single part is interchangeble.
No, that's false. If you believe that, then you have never worked with either weapon. The fact that you listed them as the same weapon says volumes.
Especially since the MG3 is chambered for .308.
The idea that a single barreled machine gun firing 1,200 rounds a minute (which the MG42 could theoretically get up to 1,800 RPM, with the correct lightweight parts) is silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Stormrider wrote:I would like to say that Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with the MP40. He did however design the MP41.
OP, I think your letting emotion cloud your arguments.
Who are you talking to?
To whomever is using MP40 and Schmeisser interchangeably.
Deff Jaw wrote:
And MG3 IS an MG42 except that the MG3 fires either at 550 rpm or 750 rpm. every single part is interchangeble.
No, that's false. If you believe that, then you have never worked with either weapon. The fact that you listed them as the same weapon says volumes.
Especially since the MG3 is chambered for .308.
[u]The idea that a single barreled machine gun firing 1,200 rounds a minute (which the MG42 could theoretically get up to 1,800 RPM, with the correct lightweight parts) is silly.
Silly? why? i put my hand in the fire if i say that the MG3 is capable (and i can say, i have shooted thousands and thousands of rounds with taht) to fire at that rate of fire (1200 RPM), for this reason MG42 and MG3 where designed with this easiness to change the barrels...
Deff Jaw wrote:What is the best MG of all time mine is the MG42/MG3.
AND DO NOT RELY ON VIDEOGAMES FOR YOUR ANSWER!
Why are you so fond of these kind of threads?
It really doesn't matter if it's a MG42, a Maxim or a HK21.
The best machinegun is the one that's not shooting at you / is the one that you've got the most training on.
Debating small details like weight, rate of fire, ease of production etc. on the internetz is borderline slowed. Especially considered that few, if any, posting in these kind of threads have familiarized themselves properly with more than a handful of machineguns.
Deff Jaw wrote:
And MG3 IS an MG42 except that the MG3 fires either at 550 rpm or 750 rpm. every single part is interchangeble.
No, that's false. If you believe that, then you have never worked with either weapon. The fact that you listed them as the same weapon says volumes.
And you can prove your point?
I don't have to, as negative statements regarding the difference between two separate artifacts are regarded as true until proven otherwise. You, on the other hand, are making a positive statement and therefore must offer proof.
Deff Jaw wrote:Whoa your talking about artillery and tanks. The german firearms are very well thought out. They are simple (surprising I know), easy to strip and maintain (the exceptions being the MG 34, Gewher 40, and 43). Also American, British, and Russian equipment broke down just as much as the Germans equipment just the germans didn't have as many spare parts. Wrecked tanks were the germans spare parts.
The german smg was so good the germans used captured russian smg's,
They new those would fire
I can also break down a door with a tommy gun, a trenchgun, an M1 Garand, etc. The guns were delicate because it took forever for them to produce. Sure they were A+ quality, but they got beaten out by quantity. The best machine gun is not necessarily the best made, but the one in the most peoples hands.
Yes, you can switch out the barrel, but that takes time and that is less brass being fired. A lot less brass being fired.
Then you have to switch out the feed cover. That takes more time and in said time, you are taking cover or getting blown up. Any gun that you have to change any piece on isn't the best. You can lose replacement barrels, the barrels overheated and warped. If they were durable then they wouldn't overheat and warp. That's simple logic.
You said so yourself, more guns=more lead down range. There were a lot of MG42's made, but other MGs were made in higher quantity.
So the MG42, not the best.
And that California remark, WTH do you mean. You made no sense in that, you said I was acting like a California, not a Californian, but a California.
Barrel change is a standard thing on any heavy work gun. The simple fact is that if you are going to put hundreds of rounds through a gun in a short period of time, an air cooled barrel is going to overheat.
Phryxis wrote:Barrel change is a standard thing on any heavy work gun. The simple fact is that if you are going to put hundreds of rounds through a gun in a short period of time, an air cooled barrel is going to overheat.
Which is the best? The one my unit has and is trained on.
I've fired M60s, M249s, M240s, M2s and the MG3.
Out of all of those I prefer the M240 for most things. Very reliable, you can adjust the gas port if you are firing a lot to keep the ROF up. As a COAX I've put several thousand rounds through one and never had a problem. As a dismounted weapon it is great, can be fired on the move, from bipod or tripod with T&E. The available night sights are great.
For vehicle use the M2 is frickin awesome for all the reasons mentioned. Again, I've fired thousands of rounds through one and never had a problem. Se the head space and timing correctly and you are good to go. Only real issue is ammo is heavy and most vehicle mounts only allow you to load a 100-200 round belt and you can burn through that quickly.
Both designs are easily maintained and very reliable. Of note, the M249 is really just a 'smaller' version of the M240, the action is about the same so it performs very well too.
halonachos wrote:I can also break down a door with a tommy gun, a trenchgun, an M1 Garand, etc. The guns were delicate because it took forever for them to produce. Sure they were A+ quality, but they got beaten out by quantity. The best machine gun is not necessarily the best made, but the one in the most peoples hands.
Yes, you can switch out the barrel, but that takes time and that is less brass being fired. A lot less brass being fired.
Then you have to switch out the feed cover. That takes more time and in said time, you are taking cover or getting blown up. Any gun that you have to change any piece on isn't the best. You can lose replacement barrels, the barrels overheated and warped. If they were durable then they wouldn't overheat and warp. That's simple logic.
You said so yourself, more guns=more lead down range. There were a lot of MG42's made, but other MGs were made in higher quantity.
The only machined weapons that the germans made were the kar 98 , gewehr 41 + 43, and the mg 34. The MP 44, MG 42, and the Mp 30 + 40 were all stamped.
The barrel change on a MG 42 take MAXIMUM 7 seconds. I have done it myself.
MG42 production during the war amounted to over 400,000 (17,915 units in 1942, 116,725 in 1943, 211,806 in 1944, and 61,877 in 1945). That is from this site: http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/MG42
The M1941 I would not because of side load magazine which makes the weapon tilt to the left and therefor harder to use. The Bren, no I have never liked british equipment over german equipment. Hell it took the british 10 years to get the L85 to work with out falling apart in the persons hands. British build quality must be "very" good.
Comparing weapons from different time periods is like having a pirate with gunpowder weapons fight a knight!
I voted M2 because of length of service. Infantry rifles, SMGs, sidearms, light machineguns, artillery pieces, tanks, aircraft, warships, and not even combat boots haven't kept their design that similar. For something to last that long in service, with as many services, and in as many different capacities - they did something right. Not to mention, it was the best sniper weapon in use for about 35 years.
Deff Jaw wrote:The M1941 I would not because of side load magazine which makes the weapon tilt to the left and therefor harder to use. The Bren, no I have never liked british equipment over german equipment. Hell it took the british 10 years to get the L85 to work with out falling apart in the persons hands. British build quality must be "very" good.
You're complaining about a thirty round mag's weight on a 10lb rifle, "it will tip it over" ? The MG42 is about 35lbs, plus however many belts of ammo you are carrying. Let's be serious here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking from my experience handling & shooting my collection of firearms, several of the German designs were technical marvels, but lousy as a combat implement (which I could expand on further if prompted). The Luger is a perfect example, very neat mechanically but a chore to load and operate compared to the P.38 or 1911.
Please feel free to PM me for an exhaustive list of my old Military firearms.
The Vickers K was a development of the Vickers-Berthier (VB) light machine gun, adopted in 1932 by the Indian Army.[1] The VB, like the Bren gun, used a tilting locking breechblock. However, unlike the Bren, the VB locked its breech only at the last moment of forward travel, and this fact enabled the development of the Vickers K or VGO (Vickers Gas Operated).[2] With lighter moving parts and the VB locking design, the Vickers K had an adjustable rate of fire between 950 and 1,200 rounds per minute, faster than the german MG34[
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Long Range Desert Group was supplied with large numbers of the Vickers VGO for use on its vehicles. They were used in single or custom built twin mountings. The Special Air Service adopted it for their hit and run tactics, mounting it in pairs on their jeeps. Over the years, it was assumed by some that the latter services took the phased-out VGO because they could obtain no other suitable machine guns. But with its high rate of fire and low-friction locking design (which proved resistant to jams from sand contamination),
The water cooled one, was even more awesome
The weapon had a reputation for great solidity and reliability. Ian V. Hogg, in Weapons & War Machines, describes an action that took place in August, 1916, during which the British Army's 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps fired their ten Vickers guns continuously for twelve hours. Without a single breakdown. "It was this absolute foolproof reliability which endeared the Vickers to every British soldier who ever fired one
Not at all I just don't like sub machine guns. I would gladly take an MP 44 over a Thompson.
And also going on british build quality is that you can't really exchange bolts on the enfields and same with their magazines. Yes, the Enfield is a good rifle it just doesn't have "interchangeable parts" in there.
And to go on the MG 42 feed cover that was only changed to fire the 7.62 nato or .308 whinchester.
Also I and saying that the 30 round magazine that sticks out the left side tends to make the weapon tilt to the left. (I am going off of experience with the FG 42).
Not at all I just don't like sub machine guns. I would gladly take an MP 44 over a Thompson.
And also going on british build quality is that you can't really exchange bolts on the enfields and same with their magazines. Yes, the Enfield is a good rifle it just doesn't have "interchangeable parts" in there.
And to go on the MG 42 feed cover that was only changed to fire the 7.62 nato or .308 whinchester.
Also I and saying that the 30 round magazine that sticks out the left side tends to make the weapon tilt to the left. (I am going off of experience with the FG 42).
How is the magazines not intercchangable from a No 1 Mk III to a No 4 Mk I?
halonachos wrote:I'm a true american boy. I won't ever give up.
MG42=Not best MG of all time.
German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
halonachos wrote:I'm a true american boy. I won't ever give up.
MG42=Not best MG of all time.
German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
Easier to operate, easier to produce easier to dismantle. Better design altogether for a combat implement.
halonachos wrote:I'm a true american boy. I won't ever give up.
MG42=Not best MG of all time.
German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
Pretty much all of the german FIREARMS are very reliable. The ONLY machined weapons were the kar 98, Gewher 41, gewher 43, Luger P08 and the MG 34. So that makes the mg 42, the MP 44, MP 38, MP 40 and the walther all STAMPED out of metal not machined. And don't worry I am an american too. And my uncle has put the MP 44 into the hands of many people in the U.S. Military and they loved it. Hmmm so if the germans weapons are that bad then why did the U.S. military people like so much?????
inquisitor_bob wrote:German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
The Walther was cheaper, double action and allowed Megatron to infiltrate more easily (true story).
inquisitor_bob wrote:German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
The Walther was cheaper, double action and allowed Megatron to infiltrate more easily (true story).
The MG 42 is lower cost to manufacture, uses less metal, takes a 1/4th of the time that it takes to manufacture an MG 34.
inquisitor_bob wrote:German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
The Walther was cheaper, double action and allowed Megatron to infiltrate more easily (true story).
Wait megatron was a Mauser broom handle type. Whew! for a minute there I thought my hero was a Nazzzzzzziiiiii.
I have a broomhandle. It is a C96 Model M30. Works beautifully but I can't hit a thing with it. At least it is more accurate than my Webley .455.
Now, that Webley is a beast. I love that pistol. It is very hard hitting and easy to maintain. The break open action is really cool.
halonachos wrote:I'm a true american boy. I won't ever give up.
MG42=Not best MG of all time.
German weapons does not handle extreme conditions well. They may be machined to very high accuracy but with that it lacks loose tolerance for operation. Why do you think the German army in 1938 decided to move away from Luger P08 to the newer P38? The loose tolerance makes the P38 function in all climates and even with little maintenance.
Pretty much all of the german FIREARMS are very reliable. The ONLY machined weapons were the kar 98, Gewher 41, gewher 43, Luger P08 and the MG 34. So that makes the mg 42, the MP 44,MP 38?, MP 40 and the walther all STAMPED out of metal not machined. And don't worry I am an american too. And my uncle has put the MP 44 into the hands of many people in the U.S. Military and they loved it. Hmmm so if the germans weapons are that bad then why did the U.S. military people like so much?????
MP-36 was a selective-fired weapon, and in fact the improved MP-38 was a simplified version of its little known predecessor, adapted for different magazine. Therefore, it took only few months before the new weapon was ready for official adoption and mass production. Manufacture of a new submachine gun, designated as MP-38, commenced in summer of 1938, at Erma, and later on also at C.G. Haenel.
The gun was manufactured for just 2 years, when it was replaced in production by externally similar, but less expensive MP-40, which used more stamped parts instead of machined parts, found in MP-38
Deff Jaw wrote:No, I am right my uncle has a MG 42 and I have seen the weld seem in the middle of the barrel.
Apart from a non-expert opinion based on a personal anecdote, do you have any sources to support your idea?
It should be pretty easy to find some reference books on infantry weapons which support your claim.
Not to mention that a weld in a barrel, subjct to high heat and friction, would eventually pop. MG42 barrels are lathe turned, high grade steel. They have to be in order to perform under such duress.
Deff Jaw wrote:No, I am right my uncle has a MG 42 and I have seen the weld seem in the middle of the barrel.
There are several possibilities here.
1) You're not the gun expert you think you are (shocking I know) and are mistaking the sleeve for the actual barrel.
2) The gun is actually a non-firing replica of impressively low quality.
3) You're just talking out your ass.
To hell with the MG 34/42 while it's bite was much worse than it's bark (despite american propaganda) it or any of the other machine gun may not have existed if the Maxim gun had never been (that includes your M2's who owe allot to there general design outwardly to the maxim .303, the MG 08/15 which link to the MG30 and this the MG34 and so on to the MG42 and the Vickers was also coupled to the Maxim) so all of the guns which are deemed, by this thread, the best should all pay homage to their Grandaddy the Maxim.
Um sorry no. Does the M1 abrams pay homage to the MK 1 tank from WW1? No. Should a Warlord pay homage to da boyz? No. So why should you pay homage to it?
dogma wrote:A fictional example. You may as well have said "This is how I think it works, therefore this is how it works."
Funny, thats what I have been hearing Deff spew for awile now.
So your grand pappy has one eh? Please provide us a pic and prove us all wrong.
I want a video of him firing it with the welded up barrel. Might even qualify for a Darwin award.
I just love how Deff continues to spew off junk without actually pointing out any real facts to back up his wild claims. It is almost like he doesn't know wth he is talking about!
jp400 wrote:I just love how Deff continues to spew off junk without actually pointing out any real facts to back up his wild claims. It is almost like he doesn't know wth he is talking about!
Well that [sarcasm]OBVIOUSLY[/sarcasm] can't be what's going on I guess the rest of us just don't know what's going on.
jp400 wrote:I just love how Deff continues to spew off junk without actually pointing out any real facts to back up his wild claims. It is almost like he doesn't know wth he is talking about!
Well that [sarcasm]OBVIOUSLY[/sarcasm] can't be what's going on I guess the rest of us just don't know what's going on.
, otherwise, is an amazing gun too, just too heavy for the purposes i had been trained for.
