|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.
Madsen really isn't of that period, it is a post war SMG introduced in 1950. And if we are going to go immediate post war then give me the Uzi which was produced around the same time. And of course there is the Swedish K which was more or less a post war SMG that I'd take over a Madsen every day.
The Madsen still came in at 7 lbs. and I was never crazy about that clam shell receiver design.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
IMO, and I have a LOT of trigger time on 60s, 240s and the MG34 and '42, the '42 is the best in its class, even now. A new 7.62x51 built from the ground up (like an MG3, I guess) with modern conveniences like rail space and so on would be a world beater.
I know one ****in' thing for certain. I would NOT want to face a couple of 42s run by crews who REALLY know what they're doing (and I mean really know, like WWI level gunnery training) without air support, artillery, or naval gunfire on call. I have probably fired 20,000 rounds through 42s and 34s, and all I can say is, I do love the 240, but I think there will be functioning 42s when all the M60s and 240s are long wrecked beyond repair.
MP41?
http://world.guns.ru/smg/de/mp41-schmeisser-e.html
I've handled one, but never shot one. It's basically just an MP40 with the older-pattern solid wood stock. It still has the less-than-ideal MP40 magazines (which, while better than STEN mags, still weren't the most reliable things in the world).
Of the WWII SMGs I've fired, I liked the Thompson the best, but it is a heavy beast. The Owen was also nifty to shoot, and ran like a top even after 50 years. To me, the epitome of an open-bolt SMG is the Sterling, but it's not quite WWII-vintage
Interesting thing about the German MGs: I read a few commentaries from WWII-era Germans and some post-war users in Scandinavia who preferred the MG34 to the MG42, primarily because the MG34's lower cyclic rate meant they didn't have to haul around as much ammo.
Oddly enough, the security guard at my building is a former 11B, and said he got to shoot the MG3 while stationed in Germany and doing maneuvers with the Bundeswehr. He said the MG3's cyclic rate made the recoil unbearable. He literally said he cried while shooting it. I've never shot an MG42/MG3 before, but I've seen several folks do so, and never heard anyone complain about painful recoil before, so I had to pass that over my mental BS filter.
Cyril: Oh now that's a breach of trust!
Lana: Do you really want to open this can of trust-breachy worms after I just found you and my ex-boyfriend with a dead hooker in the trunk?
Cyril: ...I do not.
A Dream of the Dark Continent
Haven't shot one in decades. Guess I was a lot younger and stronger then. It didn't seem to weigh much.
I've shot at one time or another most mentioned MG's and respect all of them. I don't have a criticism of any of the opinions expressed, just wanted to put a couple out there from men who used or faced in real combat the weapons in the video.
Add: One eastern European man whom I knew used the PPSH 41 and, although he remembered with pain what he did with it, believed it was one of the best, if not the best, gun of its type.
Last edited by g5m; 05-27-12 at 02:32.
former cat herder
Theres a youtube video of a guy that put a video camera down range and shot the '42 at a slight berm in front of it to give you an idea what its like being shot at by one. Pretty dam scary.
In ever category of small arms the US was behind the other world armies except the Garand and M2. Even by the time Korea rolled around we still had not figured out that fact.
The Thompson was out dated when it was first introduced since it was behind even the MP18 that had been in service a few years before the Thompson was made.
Our magazine fed LMG (BAR) was not as good as the Jap 96/99 & ZB26/30/Bren series.
The beltfed LMG 1919A6 was a joke compared to the MG34/42.
As a MMG the 1917 and 1919A4 did fine but the MG34/42 were adequate for this role w/o having to have a separate weapons system thus making the 1917/1919 a redundant system that has pretty much been done away with how.
Of course we never figured out the assualt rifle until the M16 came along.
At the beginning of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Beretta 38A
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: none existed
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG34
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
At the end of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Swedish m/45
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: STG 44/45
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG42
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
Firearms engineer for hire on a piece work basis.
http://weaponblueprints.com/
The Garand doesn't really fit into a discussion about SMGs and LMGs, but if we turn our attention to battle rifles, I do think that we have to consider a bit of context before drawing too many conclusions. Keep in mind that the Germans entered the war expecting a swift and decisive outcome, and they fielded their systems accordingly. Hard battles in the east (in particular) forced them to develop and field better weapons and equipment, but the k.98 was more than enough rifle for the early campaigns in France, Africa and Russia.
We have to remember that the Wehrmacht had already been at war for nearly four years by the time the Amis showed up in Italy with their Garands in late 1943. By then, the Germans had the G.43 ready to go (though not yet universally-fielded), and they were already diverting production resources toward an entirely new class of individual weapon for which we had no answer at all: the game-changing Sturmgewehr.
None of this takes anything away from the mighty Garand, and Patton had good reason to call it "the greatest battle implement ever devised;" even so, I think we as Americans tend to gloss-over the G.43 and presume that we alone fielded an effective semi-automatic battle rifle in WWII. With apologies to George and Ira Gershwin, that just "ain't necessarily so."
AC
Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. -- Captain John Parker, Lexington, 1775.
Just a couple more comments:
I'd agree with the comment about the Jap 96/99's. The 99 is my favorite of it's class.
Also, I asked the father of a classmate who fought on the Eastern Front about the MG34 and MG 42. He said "we had the 34's. It was a good gun. We heard about the 42's but never had them".
That conversation occurred many years ago. Wish I'd asked more.
Add: Might as well add one other bit. A gentleman from Canada whom I met was a Bren gunner assistant (I don't remember the exact term).
He was captured shortly after D-Day and for several days was encouraged by the Germans to join them in their fight in the East. He wouldn't have to fight his fellow countrymen. Turned them down, of course, and spent the rest of the war working in a mine in Czechoslovakia.
Last edited by g5m; 05-27-12 at 11:37. Reason: more
former cat herder
Bookmarks