Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

More guns equals more lead down range.

You can make a MG 42 fire 7.62 X 51 mm NATO, Just switch out the barrel and the feed cover.

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.

http://www.mgoc.org?

Thank you sir!

BTW I do rather admire your sig.

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.

True
Which is why the vickers is the best gun

The Vickers is the best because you can make tea using the barrel cooling exhaust.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Vickers is the best because you can make tea using the barrel cooling exhaust.

+1

I should add that this does not work so well if you had to wee into the condenser to top up the water level.

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

That proves his point. US machine gun production:
# United States = 2,679,840

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/691636

Huzzah! I knew we made more. More guns=more lead like you said.

I would still take an MG 42 over a browning.

But would you take it over something of comparable design datewise, say a Bren or a Johnson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is the reason the Germans and Japanese and Italians lost the war.

Wait, I thought it was this!

Nope, the Canadians definitely won the war for the Allies.

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.

I'll go with the MG34 - Kraftwerke, baby, Kraftwerke.

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

Deff Jaw wrote:The Thompson is a POS.

How high were you when you wrote this?

Tyyr wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:The Thompson is a POS.

How high were you when you wrote this?

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).

Deff Jaw wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:The Thompson is a POS.

How high were you when you wrote this?

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?

Actually NO BOLTS AND MAGAZINES are really interchangeable for all Enfields. Yes they still work, but barely.

Deff Jaw wrote:Actually NO BOLTS AND MAGAZINES are really interchangeable for all Enfields. Yes they still work, but barely.

I give up, I guess I am dealing with a master armorer or gunsmith that has held, dismantled and fired every type of firearm in existstence.

Good 1 down a lot to go.

I'm a true american boy. I won't ever give up.

MG42=Not best MG of all time.

Deff Jaw wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:The Thompson is a POS.

How high were you when you wrote this?

Not at all I just don't like sub machine guns. I would gladly take an MP 44 over a Thompson.

That in no way relates to the quality of the weapon. It's just your rather myopic opinion.