Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Best machine guns - America or the Nazis - VIDEO

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    615
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by snekrz View Post
    I believe the germans were well ahead of their time in weapons, but thankfully too little too late. Mine certainly gets the most looks and raised eyebrows at the range Even the RSOs love it. Though its not FA it was on my bucket list. Took me on and off about 5 years to build.
    That looks great! Bet you really enjoy it, too.
    former cat herder

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kmrtnsn View Post
    It did work in 7.62x51, we just weren't there yet.
    The reason it didn't work well with the 30-06 was the 06 is longer than the 8MM Mauser and the engineers forgot to lenghten the reciever accordingly.

    The 7.62 NATO round is shorter than the 8MM Mauser is making it work was far simpler.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by g5m View Post
    I think, if we're adding others of that period or close to it, that I'd vote for the Madsen 50. Light and very controllable and relatively slow rate of fire.
    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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,177
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ptmccain View Post
    The MG42 was, by far, the best machine gun fielded during WWII for a wide variety of roles. The BMG was great for more limited roles, but no way could troops haul that heavy monster around like the Germans could use their MG42. Oh, yes, and the whole 1,200 round per minute cyclic rate, there's that minor detail too.

    The MG42 was a superb anti-personnel MG, remains so to this day.
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,642
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    I think my favorite would be the MP41 as far as SMGs go.
    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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    615
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    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.
    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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    149
    Feedback Score
    0
    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/

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    4,079
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommel View Post
    The US fielded the Garand while the Germans were still hauling Mausers.

    -Tom
    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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    615
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    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

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •