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.

  • 3346
    MEMBERS
  • 190031
    MESSAGES
  • 28
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

For Your Amusement   General Army topics

Started 15/9/21 by stancrist; 14477 views.
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.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

autogun said:

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.

Yes and my argument is that this is linked to how "controllable in full-auto" is defined and thus not actually the case if depneding on it.
When I joined the army allmost three decades ago the standard issue rifle still has been the G3 rifle. Which is a 7,62x51 battle rifle with full auto capability. It is absolute controllable in full auto if used according to SOP. The concept was to use full auto to maximise hit chance under certain conditions. Which usually meant short aimed bursts. Of course a light gun without a bipod can not deliver the same controllability and accuracy as a LMG with more than twice the weight. That really is to much to ask. But at 100 m and closer short aimed bursts have a massive higher hit chance than single shots. Above 100 m full auto from a rifle is not really necessary.
Of course if one holds the trigger down the shots will go all over the place. This is simply not the proper way to use a full auto gun. Regardless of caliber. Even with a 7,62x39 or 5,56x45 this is not done.
Most guns I have ever fired have been .308 or larger caliber. My hunting rifle is .308. Its conciderable lighter than a FG42 and I have no problems with the recoil. Its a bolt action so no full auto though.

autogun said:

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.

The muzzle flash certainly is less the ideal.
If I remember corretly you complained about the colabsible stock of a G3 rifle. We used to love these. They are so much more practical than the fixed stocks. A lot of the NCOs purchased them privatly and used them. Its all a matter of perception, what one is used to and what you preferences are. Not long ago I have been called a relic by a young service man. He also things 7,62x51 has to much recoil and shooting with iron sights is an imposition. But I easily beat him on the range with an old G 3 rifle against his poor performance with a G 36. He than claimed that because he tried the G 3 befor his shoulder hurt and impaired him. At this point I called him a pussy and that he should be ashamed since he couldn't even loose with dignity.
I think the moral of the story is if you learn to shoot with a full power rifle and train with it so know its limitations and how to use it properly. It works fine. If learn by the easy way everything else seems hard.

EmericD

From: EmericD

6-Aug

schnuersi said:

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.

Well, in nearly all the current videos of the XM5, the rifle is fired with a suppressor and is using the "Training Practice" round (~2900 J), which is not really in the same league as the 7.92 x 57 mm (~3500 J).

If the XM5 is lighter than the FG42 (3.8 kg for the bare XM5 vs. 4.2 - 4.95 kg for the heaviest FG42 according to Wiki), once you put a suppressor (+0.66 kg), a short front grip (+0.1 kg), an EOTech red dot (+0.26 kg), a x3 magnifier (+0.18 kg) and a AN/PEQ laser pointer (+0.23 kg), you're ending around 5.23 kg for the gun, without magazine and ammo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf3ZlUkOCg

And the "real stuff" is supposed to use the XM157 scope, which should weight around 1 kg, so the "rifle weight" will be around 5.7 kg (without magazine). The "full XM5 system" is expected to be significantly heavier than the FG42...

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

EmericD said:

Well, in nearly all the current videos of the XM5, the rifle is fired with a suppressor and is using the "Training Practice" round (~2900 J), which is not really in the same league as the 7.92 x 57 mm (~3500 J).

I am not talking about the practice round but the real combat loading. Which is above 3000 J and the the same range as the 7,92x57. If we would compare downloaded versions the question would be how would the FG42 perform with a sub 3000 J version of the 7,92x57.

EmericD said:

And the "real stuff" is supposed to use the XM157 scope, which should weight around 1 kg, so the "rifle weight" will be around 5.7 kg (without magazine). The "full XM5 system" is expected to be significantly heavier than the FG42...

Fair enough. Allthough the FG42 also could be equiped with a scope wich would certainly result in a unloaded weight ~5,5 kg.
The late version of the FG42 is ~5 kg empty. The early ones which had to be significantly redesigned have been lighter.

Never the less I still don't see why the FG 42 should be any worse than the XM 5 (using combat load) recoil wise. Concidering the FG42 had a muzzle break and could recoil into the stock to dampen it. While the XM5 doesn't seem to have such features. Its just a little heavier.

Msg 7919.16 deleted
TOP