The MG42 Machine Gun Was Hitler’s Buzz Saw

War is Boring ^ | October 28, 2014 | Paul Richard Huard

[Fraxinus]

It was hard keeping it fed at that rate of fire.

While true, this tends to rather hard on those troops that draw the fire untill it runs out.

[Tallguy]

The MG42 made dismounted German infantry very stout on defense, but it cost them in mobility when bounding forward in the advance. Great “base of fire” though.

[fini]

"The MG42 was a war loser not a war winner."

I beg to differ. The Italians and Spanish still used the MG42 well into the 1980s and my men and I had an opportunity to shoot them several times under different situations. I was in the Marine Corps then and we had the M60; which in a general way was the grandson of the MG42.

The MG42 never broke, ate anything it was fed, was very accurate (especially unusual when you consider how old many of these guns were) and had a very good balance for a MG.

Yeah, it was heavy, but it was a lot better than the M60 we carried. The general opinion was that they lightened the M60 so much that parts were prone to cracking. And they seemed to crack all of the time. We kept an extra fully assembled bolt (not authorized) with us when we shot our MGs, because the M60 bolt lugs seemed to like crack.

I remember once, we shot our M60s about 800 rds per gun and by the end of the shoot, 2 of the 6 were broken due to parts breakage. in contrast, I asked my Italian counterpart how often their MG42 broke. He looked at me like it I was crazy. He told me that parts wore out, but always gave warning, so they had time to get new parts.

[Chainmail]

Comparing the M60 to anything, the other gun will be better. I carried one in Vietnam and it was a failure-prone, least-bidder piece of trash. The enemy guns worked better, which is saying something.

The MG42 has too high a rate of fire. Too much ammo burned, too dense a pattern, crazy barrel heating. No use at all for defensive fires.

The M240G is a far better gun - very happy our Corps got it.

[Chainmail]

No, it wasn’t the M60 is a gas-operated, rotating bolt weapon, uses disintegrating belts, closer to the Lewis Gun in design.
The MG42 is a roller-locked recoil-operated gun with nondisintegrating belts. Different in every respect.

[colorado tanker]

"The M60 machine gun began development in the late 1940s as a program for a new, lighter 7.62 mm machine gun. It was partly derived from German guns of World War II (most notably the FG 42 and the MG 42),but it contained American innovations as well. Early prototypes, notably the T52 and T161 bore a close resemblance to both the M1941 Johnson machine gun and the FG 42."

I was told the same thing when I was in the Army.

[Oatka]

That clip illustrates one of my major gripes about Hollywood - no shell casings flying about. I understand they have some butane-fired device that simulates gun flashes, even using them of auto pistols and rifles. Kills the scene for me every time. OK, I can see the economy and safety angle, but couldn't they at least get a stagehand to fling empties around?

I can't remember the movie now but there was a scene where a machine gun blazed away for a few minutes and when it stopped, you could hear the empties pinging as they caromed off everything in sight. Nearly wet myself with joy.

Great gun crew action and sound effects at :08, 1:32, 2:00 on YouTube.

[Chainmail]

Whoever wrote that was only partially right: the M60 and the FG42 had some features in common but the FG42 was made of high quality material, was select-fire weapon, and fed from a side-mounted magazine. Nonetheless, the FG42 was considered uncontrollable and operationally a failure.

The Johnson M1941 machine gun was recoil-operated, had a multi-lugged rotating bolt (which was copied for the AR-15/M-16) and also fed from a side magazine. It was also made of high quality steel forgings. No resemblance at all.

The M60 is made of cheap stampings, castings, and plastic. We used to have chipped bolt lugs, sear notch failures -runaway guns- broken firing pins, melted barrels, etc. Worse, it isn’t at all accurate with its open bolt/long slide until it fires, wobbly barrel attachment, loose fit to the pintle, etc.

I remember writing my congressman back then, while I was still in combat, asking why our weapons - the M16 and the M60 - were so substandard but I never got an answer.

The answer was that they didn’t care what we used. We weren’t their kids.

[DCBryan1]

I see shell casings and links dropping behind the tripod...right where they are supposed to drop. That gun is a live gun and was formerly a Stembridge movie gun rental. Last I heard, it was bought by Long Mountain Outfitters and sold to a private collector.

[Oatka]

I see shell casings and links dropping behind the tripod...right where they are supposed to drop.

Ok, thanks. The old eyes ain't what they used to be - my attention to detail either. :-(

[wita]

Ma deuce for me. In reality though, availability and affordability of any and all late model, early model ever designed and put into production and deemed untouchable and unaffordable by those without an understanding of shall not be infringed.

I remember my only experience at the Eglin AFB Air Power exhibition. Way back in ‘68 as part of the show, a machine gun demonstration that was truly eye watering. One hundred rounds run through a number of guns starting with something from WWI that probably looked and sounded exactly like the one in your pic.

The idea was to show the increase in rate of fire, which for the first gun was quite a few seconds progressing to the latest 20mm gatling gun at the time, just an explosion or zipper for the time it took to go through one hundred rounds.

[SunkenCiv]

Gee, I wonder how the Germans maintained a front that large, in a hostile climate, for most of four years, while outnumbered from 2:1 to 4:1? :’) Thanks C19fan.