MG 42

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: MG42

#46

Post by Yoozername » 13 Dec 2016, 17:29

yabint wrote:That's a nice clip, it also shows how you long you can make a 50 round belt last by taking short bursts.
The MG42 on the bipod is meant to be fired in bursts typically. Its worth noting the bipod is actually hinged to rock backwards. Basically, the firer acts as the 'buffer' spring. It is important that the barrel is moved back inline and not introducing an angular motion. If you have ever seen a US M1919A4 firing from the small tripod, you can see the barrel motion that would introduce great variance in flights of the bullets.



Anyone see what he did around second 55??

Last edited by Yoozername on 14 Dec 2016, 01:24, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: MG 42

#47

Post by Yoozername » 14 Dec 2016, 01:13



LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: MG42

#48

Post by LineDoggie » 14 Dec 2016, 07:42

Yoozername wrote:The MG42 on the tripod mount has a buffer spring built into the mount that allows the weapon mount to take up the recoil and not angle up like a US 1919A4 does when firing. I believe there was a heavier bolt option that slowed the rate of fire. Can't recall where I read that.

Nice but thats a POSTWAR MG3 tripod not a Lafette 42
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: MG 42

#49

Post by Yoozername » 14 Dec 2016, 07:54

I was making a point but thanks! Both tripods have a buffer spring built into them?
Last edited by Yoozername on 14 Dec 2016, 19:16, edited 1 time in total.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: MG 42

#50

Post by Stiltzkin » 14 Dec 2016, 07:55

Drehkopfverschluss vs Rollenstützverschluss,
minor accuracy advantage vs higher cyclic rate.
The main advantage of the 42 is actually manufacturing cost and time.

User avatar
Sarge
Member
Posts: 398
Joined: 04 Mar 2004, 08:52
Location: Colorado

Re: MG 42

#51

Post by Sarge » 14 Dec 2016, 10:33

8-) I got my first MG 42 in 1960. Do love that gun. I have my shooter converted to 7.62 Nato. Much cheaper to shoot, both for live & blanks.
While not "necessary" to put a sand bag on the front tripod leg it also does no harm. I've found that it holds the gun steadier when firing long bursts.
A good/experienced gunner can single shot the 42 with little problem. Took me a bit of practice, but I then could do single or double shots whenever I wanted to. It makes no difference whether shooting live or blanks.
I quite often would catch a GI or Brit exposed and shoot him once which left the others thinking they had a rifle in front of them. After doing this a couple of times they would figure out about where I was and several of them charge me - GOTTCHA! I then let go with a couple of 10/12 rd bursts.
I like to hear a 42 run, it has a sound like no other on the battle field - you know instantly what is shooting.
Sarge

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5669
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: MG 42

#52

Post by OpanaPointer » 23 Dec 2016, 15:24

Is this an MG-42?

Image
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

shamirnewell
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 25 May 2015, 15:08
Location: South Africa

Re: MG 42

#53

Post by shamirnewell » 23 Dec 2016, 17:20

OpanaPointer wrote:Is this an MG-42?

Image
Yes a damaged one.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5669
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: MG 42

#54

Post by OpanaPointer » 23 Dec 2016, 17:27

Thanks. I note that they haven't discarded it. I also note that they seem to have an identity crisis going on, the GI helmet being waved to stop Blue-on-Blue?

Source claims this was on the Cotentin Peninsula on D-Day.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

shamirnewell
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 25 May 2015, 15:08
Location: South Africa

Re: MG 42

#55

Post by shamirnewell » 23 Dec 2016, 17:38

OpanaPointer wrote:Thanks. I note that they haven't discarded it. I also note that they seem to have an identity crisis going on, the GI helmet being waved to stop Blue-on-Blue?

Source claims this was on the Cotentin Peninsula on D-Day.
I always thought he is trying to draw fire so he can ascertain where German fire is coming from
Ans that the mg42 is recently battle damaged. The top receiver cover is opened and damaged, there is no barrel mounted in it, damage to grip and shoulder stock.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5669
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: MG 42

#56

Post by OpanaPointer » 23 Dec 2016, 17:45

shamirnewell wrote:
OpanaPointer wrote:Thanks. I note that they haven't discarded it. I also note that they seem to have an identity crisis going on, the GI helmet being waved to stop Blue-on-Blue?

Source claims this was on the Cotentin Peninsula on D-Day.
I always thought he is trying to draw fire so he can ascertain where German fire is coming from
Ans that the mg42 is recently battle damaged. The top receiver cover is opened and damaged, there is no barrel mounted in it, damage to grip and shoulder stock.
I think the Heer would notice a helmet virtually floating in the air? Of course we'll never know for sure. :thumbsup:
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: MG 42

#57

Post by Yoozername » 24 Dec 2016, 21:18

From the camera height/angle, it seems that the picture was taken by a standing man.

yabint
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 17 Mar 2004, 04:15
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: MG 42

#58

Post by yabint » 24 Dec 2016, 21:40

Yoozername wrote:From the camera height/angle, it seems that the picture was taken by a standing man.
Good point. A lot of the "battle photos" are actually staged. After all who has time to frame a photo (with a manual camera, no point and shoots then) with bullets flying in the air?

Also I have read that it was common for infantry to destroy captured machineguns by breaking the stock and bending the action. Saves carrying it to prevent it from being re-captured.

Post Reply

Return to “Small Arms”