Is this what I think it is?
- Thread starter stagpanther
- Start date
You might find this May 2022 page of interest: https://sofrep.com/news/100-year-old-m1910-maxim-machine-gun-used-by-ukrainian-forces/
I think your picture is of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BundeswehrMG3_noBG.png
Which is derived from what you think it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_3_machine_gun
I think your picture is of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BundeswehrMG3_noBG.png
Which is derived from what you think it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_3_machine_gun
stagpanther
New member
Thanks Ballard--even in NATO 7.62x 51 that must be a daunting weapon to come up against.
bamaranger
New member
footage
There is a great deal of YouTube footage of the MG3 in recent use by the German Army (current) as well as other militaries as well.
There is a great deal of YouTube footage of the MG3 in recent use by the German Army (current) as well as other militaries as well.
Back in the 90'd, Lithuania joined NATO and sent troops in request.
They brought a LOAD of MG"s, fresh from the arsenal with the "swastikas" proof marks and they had PLENTY of late WWII belted ammo, to boot.
When ammo ran out the change over to 762NATO ammo was done with ease!
Some early UTUBE videos from the ruskian invasion showed some 1908 MAXINS resighted in with RED DOts on them. Did the job, too.
They brought a LOAD of MG"s, fresh from the arsenal with the "swastikas" proof marks and they had PLENTY of late WWII belted ammo, to boot.
When ammo ran out the change over to 762NATO ammo was done with ease!
Some early UTUBE videos from the ruskian invasion showed some 1908 MAXINS resighted in with RED DOts on them. Did the job, too.
Jim Watson
New member
Reportedly there was a WWII project to copy the MG42 in .30-06. It didn't work because our experts did not take into account the longer OAL of our ammo.
"Hitler's buzz saw"....
shooting Russians in '42
Still shooting Russians in '22.....
Speaks to both a successful design and desperate people...
I've heard stories about our attempt to build the MG42 in .30-06, and how it failed due to our lack of taking into account the difference in length between the rounds....(don't have any solid sources, though, just stories over the years)
One of the stories says it was Savage, and it was only a prototype, and it didn't work due to the difference in cartridge length, which Savage engineers knew about. According to that version of the story, the Army gave them a captured MG42 and said "Build this! in 06! and build it yesterday!" and didn't care for explantions or the delay it would take to reverse engineer the gun to create the drawnings and tooling to make the gun in .30-06 and make it work. SO, Savage did what the customer demanded.
And when it didn't work, the idea was dropped by the Army for several good reasons, among them being, its a poor idea to arm your troops with an exact copy of the enemy's weapons (which look and sound just like the enemy), and that by the time any could be made and fielded, we didn't need them, the Brownings were winning the war just fine as they were...
There are other versions of the story, some similar, some different....no one today knows what really happened, or exactly why...
shooting Russians in '42
Still shooting Russians in '22.....
Speaks to both a successful design and desperate people...
I've heard stories about our attempt to build the MG42 in .30-06, and how it failed due to our lack of taking into account the difference in length between the rounds....(don't have any solid sources, though, just stories over the years)
One of the stories says it was Savage, and it was only a prototype, and it didn't work due to the difference in cartridge length, which Savage engineers knew about. According to that version of the story, the Army gave them a captured MG42 and said "Build this! in 06! and build it yesterday!" and didn't care for explantions or the delay it would take to reverse engineer the gun to create the drawnings and tooling to make the gun in .30-06 and make it work. SO, Savage did what the customer demanded.
And when it didn't work, the idea was dropped by the Army for several good reasons, among them being, its a poor idea to arm your troops with an exact copy of the enemy's weapons (which look and sound just like the enemy), and that by the time any could be made and fielded, we didn't need them, the Brownings were winning the war just fine as they were...
There are other versions of the story, some similar, some different....no one today knows what really happened, or exactly why...
Indeed.Bamaranger said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f5DnoI5Mlg
I wonder what is better about the machine guns adopted by France, the UK and US since WWII. As we all know from watching Combat! re-runs, the MG42 had a high rate of fire, but german M3s had a heavier buffer weight that slowed the rate of fire.
FrankenMauser
New member
Schwarzlose and Madsen MGs have been spotted in Ukraine within the last 2 weeks.
"MG 42" does not surprise me at all.
"MG 42" does not surprise me at all.
In many cases not a whole lot. The US M60 machine gun is not a good gun. Weight is ok, lighter than many, but otherwise it...has flaws...The M240 (FN MAG 58) is a better gun. The US M73/73A1/M219 guns were coax crap, in a very handy but overcomplicated package. I won't comment on the French, or UK arms, because I have no personal experience with them.
Nominal rate of fire for the MG 42 is 1100-1200rpm. Same rate for the MG3, with the regular bolt group & springs. The "slow rate" bolt group & spring reduces the rate to 800-950rpm. according to Wiki...
bamaranger
New member
I watched film clip of German troops fighting the Taliban, hosing down a mud hut with a M3 while the squad flanked. That particular M3 was running at the high rate, and the gunner was not particularly economical with his ammo expenditure. 