|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
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
What he said. That was my thinking as well for the MMG class.
I personally would rather have a Vickers over the 1917 for looks alone but that's as a collector not some one using them in combat. I think its a hard pick between the two as a good MMG since both are reliable yet the Vickers has more parts to worry about but its also easier to change the feed block, barrel and bolt out. The Maxim is only slightly different than the Vickers being its fore runner and is a good MMG but not as well product improved as the Vickers.
As for handguns, I considered addressing it but I could not justify my picks so I did not do it. The high power a great gun as is the 1911 and so was the P39. Each has its merits but if you looked at how they were carried by the military the P38 might be the winner since it was typically carrier with a round in the chamber unlike the other two. The Polish Radom was also excellent.
The other area I left alone was the carbine. The US fielded one but there was not a comparable one until the Volkssturmgewehr VG 1.
Firearms engineer for hire on a piece work basis.
http://weaponblueprints.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=eB8sG4smWbo Fast forward to 2:00
Doubly ridiculous, considering that the MG3 fires the standard NATO 7.62x51 which is nowhere near as potent as the 7.92x57 fired in the MG34 and MG42.
AC
Different purposes. In a defensive or static position, it's hard to beat a gun that will damn near keep shooting forever as long as you keep feeding it water and ammunition. Water cooling is a significant advantage if you plan on shooting a lot and not moving much, which doesn't happen that much any more.
Per Chinn:
We don't HAVE a gun that could do that now. I suppose whether we need one or not is arguable, but I am not aware of any man-portable weapon currently in the US inventory that would be capable of firing 21,000 continuous rounds. In fact, I would say that even the attempt to do so, with enough barrels to stay ahead of the heat, would trash a 240 by 8-10,000, and the 60 would have been lucky to make it to 4000.The Army Ordnance Department showed little interest in machine guns until war was declared in April 1917. At that time, the U.S. arsenal included only 1,100 machine guns, and most of those were outmoded. The government asked several designers to submit weapons. Browning arranged a test at the Springfield Armory in May, 1917. In the first test, the weapon fired 20,000 rounds without incident. The reliability was exceptional, so Browning fired another 20,000 rounds through the weapon without any parts failing. The Ordnance Board was impressed but was unconvinced that the same level of performance could be achieved in a production model. Consequently, Browning used a second gun that not only duplicated the original trial, but it also fired continuously for 48 minutes and 12 seconds (over 21,000 rounds).
Yup. I shoot it in 8mm all the time and while it's quite dramatic, it isn't painful.
http://s1238.photobucket.com/albums/...rrent=MG42.mp4
I don't know why the ****ing audio got out of sync.
Last edited by QuietShootr; 05-27-12 at 23:08.
Bookmarks