gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3358
    MEMBERS
  • 191149
    MESSAGES
  • 5
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

For Your Amusement   General Army topics

Started 15/9/21 by stancrist; 15345 views.
Msg 7919.3 and the next 3 deleted
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

Its a great video.
Its just great how he undermines everyones expectations by taking the question by its wording to define the requirements that need to be met. Which leads to a result I am pretty sure nobody expected. Makes me see the cartidge he picked in a new light.

EmericD

From: EmericD

6-Aug

schnuersi said:

Its just great how he undermines everyones expectations by taking the question by its wording to define the requirements that need to be met. Which leads to a result I am pretty sure nobody expected. Makes me see the cartidge he picked in a new light.

That also highlight the benefits of the .276 Pedersen, which was 25% lighter (with less recoil) than the .30-06 M2, while delivering the same amount of energy at medium & long range... a truly missed opportunity.

autogun

From: autogun

6-Aug

EmericD said:

That also highlight the benefits of the .276 Pedersen, which was 25% lighter (with less recoil) than the .30-06 M2, while delivering the same amount of energy at medium & long range... a truly missed opportunity.

Yes indeed - that will be featuring in the second version of my alt WW2 history The Foresight War, when I get around to writing it...

The British were very interested in the Pedersen round, and as I recall they manufactured more of the ammo in the UK than was made in the USA.

Apart from more conventional weapons, the much lighter recoil compared with the 7.92 x 57 might have made something like the FG 42 more successful. The idea of equipping every paratrooper with the maximum feasible firepower was good in principle, but the recoil was too great.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

autogun said:

Apart from more conventional weapons, the much lighter recoil compared with the 7.92 x 57 might have made something like the FG 42 more successful. The idea of equipping every paratrooper with the maximum feasible firepower was good in principle, but the recoil was too great.

I am seriously not convinced the FG42 had such a recoil problem that it became ineffective.
Its certainly not a suitable replacement for a LMG but as automatic rifle, rifle and SMG replacement it certainly works. The focus being on the rifle role. If it is compared to later battle rifles it is a bit heavier and two special features to mitigate recoil. The post war battle rifles did not have this and where very useable and effective. They still are. The new XM5 uses a cartidge that is roughly the same league as the 7,92x57 power. At the same time its significantly lighter than the FG42. This gun should be completly unusable if we apply the same standards.
IMHO its a matter of perception and individual preferences. There also is the theory that the MG42 and its successors with high ROF are uncontrollable und difficult to use. Its all a matter of training, what one is used to and understanding who things work and why.

On the other hand I think an FG 42 in 7,92x33 would be a waste of resources. All its advanced features would be wasted. A rather simple gun like the Stg-Series is all that is needed for such a low powered cartidge with limited effective range.

If we are talking about lost opportunities the Germans small arms program of the inter war peroid produced some very promising cartidges. An FG 42 in 7,7x40,5 would have been very intresting. Or one in 6,5x55.

autogun

From: autogun

6-Aug

schnuersi said:

I am seriously not convinced the FG42 had such a recoil problem that it became ineffective. Its certainly not a suitable replacement for a LMG but as automatic rifle, rifle and SMG replacement it certainly works. The focus being on the rifle role. If it is compared to later battle rifles it is a bit heavier and two special features to mitigate recoil. The post war battle rifles did not have this and where very useable and effective. They still are. The new XM5 uses a cartidge that is roughly the same league as the 7,92x57 power. At the same time its significantly lighter than the FG42. This gun should be completly unusable if we apply the same standards.

I didn't say the FG 42 was ineffective - what I meant was that the recoil was too heavy for the gun to be reasonably controllable in full-auto. 

This also applied to the postwar battle rifles which started life with an auto capability but mostly had it removed as a waste of ammo. I think that the much reduced recoil of the .276 Pedersen would have made a considerable difference to the usability of selective-fire battle rifles.

Incidentally, I once had the opportunity to fire an FG 42. Only a couple of rounds, and no chance of full auto. The recoil was heavy, and the fireball at the muzzle was spectacular even in broad daylight, due to the relatively short barrel.

TOP