Author Topic: MG-42 Question (Read 1238 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2004, 03:41:47 AM »

maybe they actually tried to hit something

Staga · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2004, 05:47:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
They needed to fire the Mg42 full auto. They were just doing little bursts.

Looks like you haven't fired a LMG. FYI that's how you supposed to use it if you want to hit anything.
Also with rate of fire o 1200 rounds per minute the barrel will be glowing after couple belts and most likely that guy did not have a spare barrel.

btw IIRC that gun did cost about 20 or 25k $, good reason not to ruin your barrel.

Staga · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2004, 05:50:13 AM »

Wow... Airsoft MG42

-tronski- · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2004, 06:57:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Wow... Airsoft MG42

holy crap, US$1450 for a bb gun!

Tronsky

SunTracker · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2004, 07:00:04 AM »

Staga, there are countless reports of guys firing M60s for several hundred rounds. You actually want some dispersion when firing a machine gun.

Wolfala · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2004, 09:42:27 AM »

OK so the modernized version of the 42 is the MG3 - just fires the Nato 7.62 and has a lower cyclic rate? Other then that, how does it differ?

Nilsen · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2004, 09:58:37 AM »

i would suspect that the quality/type of the metal is better but other than that i have no idea.

Dune · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2004, 10:05:19 AM »

The barrel change system in the M60 was also based on that of the MG42

Charon · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2004, 10:18:19 AM »

The M-60 is regarded by some as being a real crappy weapon, almost like the whole m-16/AK-47 comparison. I don't recall it having that bad a rep when I was serving, but then I didn't use it as a main weapon or fire to to any great degree. Still there were a lot of Vietnam era soldiers in my unit with a lot more experience, and they didn't offer any real complaints or stories, etc. Does anybody have more information? I know the SAW and MAG have largely replaced it in service today.

Charon

Furball · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2004, 11:05:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LAWCobra
Trivia time MG stands for Machine gun LOL Duh 42 stands for the year it enterd service. hence MG42 came along in 1942.

So the MG3 entered service... ummm.... 0003?

BenDover · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2004, 11:59:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
If you're interested about high-quality vid of firing MG42 download this (21mb, right-click, save as).
Not sure how long I can store that so grab it while you can.

Wow, look at the recoil on that bad mother****er.
Shell casings eject pretty fast aswell.

Tarmac · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:09:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
OK so the modernized version of the 42 is the MG3 - just fires the Nato 7.62 and has a lower cyclic rate? Other then that, how does it differ?

Cyclic rate is the same, but you can swap out a few parts to lower the MG3's rate of fire.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:10:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
OK so the modernized version of the 42 is the MG3 - just fires the Nato 7.62 and has a lower cyclic rate? Other then that, how does it differ?

I could be wrong, but AFAIK, there are no major differences. The weapons even look nearly identical.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:14:17 PM »

Heres a good comparison of the two. Had it not been for the unofirms, I wouldnt have been able to tell which was which.

God bless Germany engineering.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2004, 12:30:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
They needed to fire the Mg42 full auto. They were just doing little bursts.

You have NEVER fired a Machin Gun in your life have you? The thing about MG42 is that it was extremly accurate with really short bursts. You get a couple of these going at once and you could send ALOT of well placed rounds down range.

Quote

The M-60 is regarded by some as being a real crappy weapon, almost like the whole m-16/AK-47 comparison. I don't recall it having that bad a rep when I was serving, but then I didn't use it as a main weapon or fire to to any great degree. Still there were a lot of Vietnam era soldiers in my unit with a lot more experience, and they didn't offer any real complaints or stories, etc. Does anybody have more information? I know the SAW and MAG have largely replaced it in service today.

I've shot the M-60 and had no complaints about it. The Main "replacment" for it today is in fact the SAW. The SAW is also a fine weapon but shoots 5.56mm NATO rounds verses 7.62MM of the M60. The US also uses the 240G or the "golf" It is primarily a defensive medium Machine gun but it uses 7.62MM.

An old friend of mine used to be a weapons and tactics instructor allways said he missed the 60 when they phased it out. He said with the golf you cant stand up and "dance" with it were as the 60 you could.