I would love to see a direct MG42 successor

manimal87 said:

I would love to see a direct MG42 successor

Thats actually what Germany and Austria use - the MG3:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_3_machine_gun

I give you the rheinmetal mg60 

This was an mg45 derivative like the cetme Amelia and semi promising.

I imagine you could modernize this even further fairly easily to get you what you want in a reasonable form factor and weight these days.

Any particular reason you want such a direct successor though?

The aesthetic is a valid answer btw 

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.         

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. 

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.

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.

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.             

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...  

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.