Best WWII automatic weapon

[Soren]

AFAIK the RoF of the M2 carried by the infantry was no more than 550 rpm max. Shot with one as-well, and its slow; *BoomBoomBoomBoomBoomBoom*

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Soren

AFAIK the RoF of the M2 carried by the infantry was no more than 550 rpm max. Shot with one as-well, and its slow; *BoomBoomBoomBoomBoomBoom*

Sounds about right - granted as a real HMG it had and still has a different role from smaller, lighter machine guns.

The MG 42 was a fearsome weapon - if I remember right our M240 now is based upon it, although cyclic fire for that is only 950.

[102first_hussars]

Originally Posted by Soren

I'd say the MG-42 beats that.

Not likely, shooting infantry is about all its good for, did the Mg42 have the many varietys of ammunition that the M2 HB does, the m2 can take out hard targets such as light to medium armoured vehichles and tear the sh*t out of any kind of cover

[the lancaster kicks ass]

good point regarding the fact you can lay low with a sten, it's not something i'd ever really thought about!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

Not likely, shooting infantry is about all its good for, did the Mg42 have the many varietys of ammunition that the M2 HB does, the m2 can take out hard targets such as light to medium armoured vehichles and tear the sh*t out of any kind of cover

Yes the MG-42 was/is used with a huge amount of different types of ammunition. During WWII the MG-42 primarily used the sS, SmE, SmE(L) SmK, SmK(L), and SmK(H) rounds.

sS = 198gr Std. infantry boat-tail projectile, MV: ~785 m/s - Penetration performance: 10mm of iron at 300m, 7mm at 550m; 5mm of steel at 100m; 3mm at 600m. (30 degree impact angle)

SmE, SmK & L = 179gr steel core boat-tail projectile, MV: ~810 m/s - Penetration performance: 8mm's of steel at 100m, 3mm at 600m. (30 degree impact angle)

SmK(H) = 193gr tungsten core spitzer projectile, MV: ~868 m/s - Penetration performance:
30 degree impact angle = 13mm's of steel at 100m, 8mm at 500m.
Vertical impact angle = 20mm of steel at 500m.

A jeep should and would prove no problem, and lightly armored troop-carriers could be engaged fairly effectively at close range.

Ofcourse with special purpose ammunition the larger M2 will always prove more destructive pr. round.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

The MG 42 was a fearsome weapon - if I remember right our M240 now is based upon it, although cyclic fire for that is only 950.

No the M240 is not based of the MG 42. The M60 is based off of the design of the MG 42.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No the M240 is not based of the MG 42. The M60 is based off of the design of the MG 42.

I'm no armorer or gun expert - but that's what I remember from my weapons classes before we hit the range.

this was taken from wiki:

The basic design of the belt-feed mechanism from the MG42 was modified and used in the M60 machine gun and also in the M240s.

It would appear though that you are right also.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Soren

Ofcourse with special purpose ammunition the larger M2 will always prove more destructive pr. round.

The beauty of heavy MGs

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have you seen a M240. The only thing that it takes from a MG-42 is the belt feld idea which the MG-42 was not the only one that was belt fed anyhow.

The M240 is laser cut and has nothing in common with the MG-42 however the M60 is very similiar.

I used to play around with both the M60 and the M240 because that is what we used as our door guns from the Blackhawks.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Have you seen a M240. The only thing that it takes from a MG-42 is the belt feld idea which the MG-42 was not the only one that was belt fed anyhow.

The M240 is laser cut and has nothing in common with the MG-42 however the M60 is very similiar.

I used to play around with both the M60 and the M240 because that is what we used as our door guns from the Blackhawks.

Never fired an M60, but stripped and humped, fired and all w/ the 240G. The belt feed mech was similar, and also the trigger mechanism I believe. Again, I'm a pilot NOT an armorer, but have used the 240G. This taken from HQMC:

"While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as the M60 series medium class machine guns, the durability of the M240 system results in superior reliability and maintainability when compared to the M60."

Here's an mg42, m60, then 240G

[Soren]

God I loath the M60, its a piece of crap if you ask me...

And mkloby is right, the feeding mechanism of the M240 is the same as the MG-42's.

Btw, the operating system of the M-60 is based upon that of the German FG42.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Never fired an M60, but stripped and humped, fired and all w/ the 240G. The belt feed mech was similar, and also the trigger mechanism I believe. Again, I'm a pilot NOT an armorer, but have used the 240G. This taken from HQMC:

"While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as the M60 series medium class machine guns, the durability of the M240 system results in superior reliability and maintainability when compared to the M60."

Here's an mg42, m60, then 240G

Wow that does not look like the 240 that we used.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

God I loath the M60, its a piece of crap if you ask me...

I disagree with you my friend. I used the weapon for 6 years as my door gun from my helicopter and I loved it. The gun worked magnificent and I used it from everywhere in arctic weather in Norway to the desert of Iraq on a daily basis. Never had a jam, run away, or anything and I could hit targets at 500m to 800m from a moving helicopter travelling between 130 and 150 knots.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Wow that does not look like the 240 that we used.

That was the Golf model. It's a version that they lightened I think for USMC infantry Wpns Plt - they're a Company level asset. I'm not sure if the other services use the M240G. I think it's a fine weapon. Again - w/ the tripod it's damn accurate.

[Soren]

I disagree with you my friend. I used the weapon for 6 years as my door gun from my helicopter and I loved it. The gun worked magnificent and I used it from everywhere in arctic weather in Norway to the desert of Iraq on a daily basis. Never had a jam, run away, or anything and I could hit targets at 500m to 800m from a moving helicopter travelling between 130 and 150 knots.

In a helicopter it might be good, but for the infantry its too clumsy, it takes too long to replace the barrell and since each barrel has a bipod permanently attached that means extra weight for the spares - plus, again, RoF is too low.

Design flaws:
The design allows for incorrect reversed reassembly of bolt components Sear wear leading to runaway guns (had to break belt to stop firing). Component durability - failures of welds and peeling of rubber grip coverings. Barrel changes - no handle for changing hot barrel, need asbestos gloves.

There's a reason the M240 is replacing the M-60.