Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LHS View Post
    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).

    Got to shoot one as a kid. And yes, basically a MP40 with old style stock But that stock is more comfortable to shoot with than the folder.
    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

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post

    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
    Seems like a solid list. Just curious why you rank the 1917 or Vickers over the 1919. Those water cooled jackets add a lot of weight.
    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

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    A small town in SE Penna
    Posts
    53
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    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
    Handgun: 1911 (or maybe BHP?)

    -Tom
    "For the cause that lacks assistance,
    The wrong that needs resistance,
    For the Future in the distance,
    And the Good that I can do"

    - George Linnaeus Banks, "What I Live for"

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Posts
    1,247
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by snekrz View Post
    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.
    umm....

    being on the receiving end of any incoming fire is unpleasant, so i guess i dont see what the point is....
    Last edited by DeltaSierra; 05-27-12 at 15:04.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    615
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Seems like a solid list. Just curious why you rank the 1917 or Vickers over the 1919. Those water cooled jackets add a lot of weight.
    The 1919 is considered to be an LMG. The 1917/Vickers was considered to be a Medium or heavy machine gun.
    former cat herder

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    149
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by g5m View Post
    The 1919 is considered to be an LMG. The 1917/Vickers was considered to be a Medium or heavy machine gun.
    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/

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,177
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LHS View Post
    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.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=eB8sG4smWbo Fast forward to 2:00

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    4,079
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    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

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,177
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Seems like a solid list. Just curious why you rank the 1917 or Vickers over the 1919. Those water cooled jackets add a lot of weight.
    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:
    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).
    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.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,177
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Army Chief View Post
    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
    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.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •