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.

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.

inquisitor_bob wrote:

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.

inquisitor_bob wrote:

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).

George Spiggott wrote:

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.

George Spiggott wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:Wait megatron was a Mauser broom handle type.

You're thinking of Han Solo's blaster, Megatron was a Walther P 38.

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.

My bad, the stock threw me.

Deff Jaw wrote:

inquisitor_bob wrote:

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

Not all the parts for an MP 38 were machined.

never said they were.

"So that makes the mg 42, the MP 44, MP 38?, MP 40 and the walther all STAMPED out of metal not machined."

Not all the parts for an MP 42 were pressed either





Edited for quotation marks

You can't stamp a barrel out of sheet metal. Gunsmiths have been machining barrels since the 16th century.

Not true, for an MG 42 they stamped both sides and welded down the center of the barrel. The stampings are very high quality.

Source?

Deff Jaw wrote:Not true, for an MG 42 they stamped both sides and welded down the center of the barrel. The stampings are very high quality.

I believe you're thinking of the barrel sleeve.

No, I am right my uncle has a MG 42 and I have seen the weld seem in the middle of the barrel.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Just as a clarification, I've never heard it called "Ma Deuce" just the "Mod Deuce".

what would the "Mod" in "Mod Deuce" mean?

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.

And yet no image that I can come upon indicates the same. I'm shocked that you might be wrong, shocked!

You aren't even good at lying. Quite impressive, your lack of talent.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Frankly it's probably a combination of all three.

Ok even if it were stamped and rolled, why on earth would you want that? Thats a weaker barrel than a cast and bored barrel. Thats almost scary.

Kind of flys in the face of that whole "superior German engineering," schtick he had going.

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?

The M1 Abrams is an inanimate object, and cannot pay homage to anything.

Any officer (Warlord) that doesn't recognize the role playbed by his men (boyz) will not be an officer (Warlord) long.

I mean this DOES AN ORK warlord pay homage to da boyz? No he does not.

I think a Ork Warlord would pay homage to a Boys' Anti-Tank Rifle.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think a Ork Warlord would pay homage to a Boys' Anti-Tank Rifle.

Not choppy enuf.