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
  • 190042
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

LMAO Germany adopts an AR-15   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 109829 views.
JPeelen

From: JPeelen

23/3/22

At the heart of German successful machine gun philosophy is the high rate of fire, as first implemented in MG34 (the low rate of fire switch of early MG34s was dropped after 2300 weapons), culminating in still faster firing MG42.

The Austrian MG74 as well as the Rheinmetall MG60 use a slow rate of fire and therefore cannot be seen as continuing the  MG42/MG1/MG3 line of machine guns. 

The problem Bundeswehr has is that existing MG3 stocks were largely destroyed after the end of the Cold War. Rheinmetall did the same with their manufacturing line. 

Because the stamping technology is lost, MG3 revceivers are currently made by milling two halves which are then welded together.         

SiverSurfeR

From: SiverSurfeR

23/3/22

The AMELI’s shape resembles the MG42 machine gun but the similarities are external only. While the MG42 uses the short recoil, roller locked system (where the barrel and bolt recoil together a short distance before separating), the AMELI employs a roller-delayed blowback action with a fixed barrel and a fluted chamber. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24/3/22

gatnerd said:

Thats actually what Germany and Austria use - the MG3:

I would argue that the MG3 technically is an MG42 version chambered in 7,62x51. The differences except for the caliber are minimal. I would argue that there are larger differences between some M240 versions than between the MG42 and MG3.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24/3/22

JPeelen said:

Because the stamping technology is lost, MG3 revceivers are currently made by milling two halves which are then welded together.

Guns made from stamped steel parts nowadays are hardly state of the art. If somebody would design a modern version of the MG42 my guess is it would not be made from stamped parts. More likely extruded and milled.
But recoil operation also isn't state of the art anymore. So it would be gas operated...

wait a minute...

The only thing they got wrong is the ROF... but since its gas operated that can easily be fixed.

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

24/3/22

Actually, the "easy fix since its gas operated" has been tried.

The moving parts of the MG5 are too heavy. At a high rate of fire, the gun beats itself to death. The design team had no idea about the role of high rate of fire in German machine gun thinking. Or any practical experience, otherwise cleaning the MG5 would not be such a "nightmare" as one soldier put it. Even at the low rate of fire, the side plates of the receiver developed cracks and had to be made heavier. I see no way to make the MG5 a fast firing machine gun. 

I am not against replacing the MG3 by a better design, but very much against a worse design. Possibly one that can replace the MG3 as coaxial tank MG without redesigning the turrets.             

stancrist

From: stancrist

24/3/22

schnuersi said:

But recoil operation also isn't state of the art anymore. So it would be gas operated... wait a minute...

The ugliest machine gun of modern times...  confounded

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24/3/22

stancrist said:

The ugliest machine gun of modern times...

IMHO its not uglier than the PKM or all the FN MAG/M240 and FN Minimi/M249 variants.

But beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24/3/22

JPeelen said:

The design team had no idea about the role of high rate of fire in German machine gun thinking.

Carefull. Do not blame the wrong people.
Just like with the G36 the designers pretty much exactly delivered what they where asked for.
Just as with the G36 the focus of the requirement was on weight reduction. Long service life was not part of it. As was no high ROF. Actually the ROF was not specified at all if i remember corretly.
I am well aware that the MG5 is not exactly great... as a GPMG. The reason is simple it was not designed as one. It was designed as a 7,62x51 LMG. Allmost entirely focussed on use by dismounted infantry. It was pressed in the GPMG role because some decision makers insisted on the GPMG concept.
The fact that all successfull GPMGs where designed as MMGs with LMG use as an aftertought eluded them. So the German Army got a MG that fullfilled the requirements for an LMG but it is issued and used as GPMG.
Never the less my point was that a modern take of the MG42 would allmost certainly not look like a MG42. Regardless if by take on the MG42 we mean a high ROF MG or a weapon using the same or similar operating principle.
I do admit my post was not entirely serious though.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

24/3/22

Bring back the MG08/15! With modern coolants, we can reduce the size of the water jacket. Modern metals, lighter receivers and barrels. #itworkedforgreatgrandfather!wink

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

24/3/22

The MG5 is all together a fairly unimpressive modern machine gun.

It hardly gains anything on weight from the FN MAG, and doesn't have the legendary overbuilt nature or reliability to pair with it.        

Compared to other modern LMGs from FN/SIG/KAC, it falls fairly short. Even when compared to modernized-with-a-sledgehammer guns like the M60E6 it comes up somewhat short. Its a shame, HK typically makes pretty well developed guns, but they somewhat dropped the ball there.

  • Edited 24 March 2022 21:40  by  Apsyda
TOP