Best WWII automatic weapon
- Thread starter Desert Fox
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Tech Sergeant
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
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
good point regarding the fact you can lay low with a sten, it's not something i'd ever really thought about!
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.
No the M240 is not based of the MG 42. The M60 is based off of the design of the MG 42.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
I am not sure what type of 240 the Infantry in the Army uses but in Aviaton we used the 240H.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
M240G is an excellent weapon. Good point - barrel on 240 changes in a quick second. Breaks down VERY quickly. Tripod adds some weight to the spare barrel bag, but depending on the situation you wouldn't have to take it. Cyclic rate varies from 650-800-950 if I remember right depending on regulator setting.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Yup - Rated at 550 I believe.
Where the heck did you get this info from? Trust me I know what I am talking about, I used it on a daily basis almost.
The barrel only takes a few sec to replace. There is a little button that you push and the barrel slides right out. New barrel slides right in and the button automatically clicks and then you push the tab and it is ready to fire.
The bipod assy was made out of very light metal and did not add any relative weight to the gun or the spare barrels. Trust me the bypod assy weighed litterally like a handful of No.2 penciles. Thats not a lot.
ROF is good eneogh.
As for the reassym of bolt assy, you cant put it together wrong. Yeah there are parts that can go in backwards or wrong, but then the overall assy does not work and your checks will show you that it is not right before you even try to fire a round. A good M60 gunner would not make these mistakes anyhow...
Never had a run away gun and I also dont know anyone else over the last 6 years who had one either. You do proper maint to your gun it does not happen.
As for peeling of rubber grip coverings, it never effected the fireing of the gun. I had half of the rubber grip covering missing off of my gun for 6 months in Iraq and it never caused a problem. All it does is allow a bit more dust in the weapon, so I cleaned it a bit more.
The funny thing is, we never cleaned them every day, because when we did, that was when a jam happened. We used good old normal WD-40 or CLP and the gun never jammed and I would only clean it about once a week and I fired it alot every day in Iraq.
As for Componant durability never had a serious problem that was caused by the gun or a componant of the gun. As a matter of fact the only problem I had was when my Feed Tray cover flew off while trying to reload the gun. Why did this happen, because we were travelling at about 120 knots and this will happen to any gun at that speed, if you do it eneogh. I found a good way to pull the gun inside so that the wind did not hit the feed tray cover and then there was not a problem after that.
As for the changing of the hot barrel and there not being a way to handle it. That is not true. All M60s (atleast the ones used by the US Army) have a handle on the barrel that you use to slide the barrel off. There are asbestos gloves as well and we are told to use them for our own safety, but in combat you dont go digging for your gloves you just put your hand on the handle, push the button and slide the barrel off.
Again I dont know where you get your info from but what you just said up there does not describe any of the M60s that I used in the Army and I happen to be an expert on the weapon.
Soren said:
Dont take me wrong. The M240 is a better weapon and it is time that the M60 got replaced. In the US Army the only ones still using the M60 is Aviation but that is slowly being phased out. Right before I got out of the Army my unit finally got rid of there M60s and got 240H's.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)