Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/21/2002 1:46:47 PM EDT

The caption says this is an Mg42, but it looks like a Mg34; but what I want to know is what is the modern equivelant of this and who makes it.
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 1:49:12 PM EDT
MG34, long out of print.

There is no modern version, though many armies field the updated MG42 under a couple of different designations.
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 3:52:53 PM EDT
Ahhhh silly multiheaded dog...

You forgot BRP and their MG34 AR upper!!!

www.brpguns.com/
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 4:43:59 PM EDT
Even if there is no modern equivalent, someone still has to manufacture it, now who would that be? HK?
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 4:47:54 PM EDT
I nominate BRPGuns MG$@ upper for the next LEGP.

Did Solthurn design the MG-34?
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 4:51:44 PM EDT
I still think the old one does the job pretty well..

Link Posted: 1/21/2002 6:38:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stormbringer:
Ahhhh silly multiheaded dog...

You forgot BRP and their MG34 AR upper!!!

www.brpguns.com/



BBWWWAAAAA!!!!!!

I want one!
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 7:03:47 PM EDT
Did you watch the video!!!!!


MAN

but the price!!! about 4k US!!!


Link Posted: 1/21/2002 7:37:10 PM EDT
That pic is a MG34.

The modern equivalent to an MG42?....

The M60 Machine gun design was based off the MG42.

Overall I think Heckler & Koch's rifles have picked up from where others left off after World War II.

In my opinion, I think HK's General Purpose Machine Gun (HK21E) is the successor to the MG42.


Link Posted: 1/21/2002 8:16:27 PM EDT
MG-34 was the predecessor to the MG-42.

Steyr produced an MG-42 variant postwar chambered in .308, and it was called the MG-74.

The US M-60 is based on the MG-42, and along with the HK-21 and all the variations thereof would be the modern equivalent of the 42.

I am not sure if the FN series of LMG's is based on the 42 design or not(MAG-58, 240, and 249??)

Chuck
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 8:32:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 300ydClean:
MG-34 was the predecessor to the MG-42.

Steyr produced an MG-42 variant postwar chambered in .308, and it was called the MG-74.

The US M-60 is based on the MG-42, and along with the HK-21 and all the variations thereof would be the modern equivalent of the 42.

I am not sure if the FN series of LMG's is based on the 42 design or not(MAG-58, 240, and 249??)

Chuck



The M-60 has the "feed tray" from an MG-42. The 60 is gas operated the MG-34/42's were recoil operated.

HK-21/23 is much closer to the MG-34/42 but I'm not sure how close.........

I read that the M-240 is more like a BAR turned upside down with an MG-42 feed tray attached. Not sure about the M-249.

I believe the current German MG-3 is a .308 version of the MG-42.

The feed tray seems to be the most innovative/copied part of the WWII MG series. The recoil operation system doesn't seem to be anything special. The quick change barrel seems to be another "concept" that has been copied, very badly on the M-60, very nicely on the HK-21/23.
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 8:43:51 PM EDT
Oly,

You are correct, when I said "based on" I used a generality.

What I meant to convey was that the German production techniques were adopted to produce weapons such as the M-60. In example I put forward the stamped sheet metal receiver, versus the machined and fabricated MG's that we employed for so long.

I believe that the Manufacturing process was the biggest contribution of the MG-42, and yes, the feed tray of the 42 does seem to be quite popular with several manufacturers.

Chuck
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 8:51:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 300ydClean:
Oly,

You are correct, when I said "based on" I used a generality.

What I meant to convey was that the German production techniques were adopted to produce weapons such as the M-60. In example I put forward the stamped sheet metal receiver, versus the machined and fabricated MG's that we employed for so long.



Oh, I agree with that.


I believe that the Manufacturing process was the biggest contribution of the MG-42, and yes, the feed tray of the 42 does seem to be quite popular with several manufacturers.

Chuck


Yes the MG-34 was more expensive and required more time and materials to produce than the MG-42. I found a web site that listed costs, and time need etc. Really neat.

I get touchy with the whole MG-42 to M-60 thing, they took a revolutionary weapon and redesigned it by commitee and screwed it up. The whole recoil vs. gas operated thing really confuses some people.
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 9:03:41 PM EDT
The 34 is a freakin nightmare to machine, the only way to get the bolt raceway in the thing is either to have it broached in, or find someone with an EDM with enough throat to cut it for you.
The M-60 never impressed me at all, it ran fine when fired in bursts, but if you tried to hammer it, it nearly always went tits up.
The MG-74 that we fired at the same time would take all that you could give it and sit there smokin, waitin for the next belt.
The 34 that we had performed flawlesly in all aspects, besides beatin the livin daylights out of a fella. Another fela who owns a 34 has all sorts of trouble with it, and it all is related to feeding. It will puke every time with Turk 8MM, and is even unreliable with German 8MM.
All the above weapons were dealer samples that we have had at one time or another.
The current HK-21 that we have is unfired by us at present, but another 21 owned by a fella in Southern Ohio is a real gem. You cant jam that thing with a screwdriver and a hammer.
If I had to pick one, I would pick the Steyr MG-74. It looks cooler than a 21 to me!!!!!

Chuck
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 9:09:44 PM EDT
I would love to fire a few belts through an MG-42, just to see what 1200 rpm feels like, or for that matter am FA-MAS.

Was reading up on the HK-21E today the said it will feed a 1000 round belt, that is appx. 25 feet, stretched out, withou assistance from the gunner or assisant gunner. They also said that H+K says it will feed a 7' long belt free standing without feeding problems. It also ejects spent brass about 25' consistently. Sounds like it has a really solid feed mechanism........
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 9:25:50 PM EDT
The 21 has a feed pawl in the tray( or should I say feed box) that resembles either a 5 or 6 pointed star. It is actuated by the recoil of the bolt carrier advancing the belt with a solid gear type engagement. It works on a sort of ratcheting mechanism, that is dead reliable from what I have seen.
I have witnessed a 21 run a 250 rd belt with nary a hiccup. The only 21 that I have ever seen misfeed or jam was an aftermarket build up.
It was not a Vollmer build, but another big name in the business. It was not a serious malfunction, and very well could have been ammo related.
The Steyr 74's only run at about 900 RPM, and that is plenty fast. Firing a 42 is like running a chainsaw wide open!!

If you ever get to Ohio on business or pleasure, be sure to E-mail a fella, and perhaps we can get out to our local range.
They are full auto friendly, and it's a decent place to shoot.

We currently have an HK-21, an RPD, 2 Galil's,and an assortment of Uzi's, M-16's and an MP-5. Hell even an AK if you wanna shoot one of those!!!!

Chuck
Link Posted: 1/21/2002 10:41:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2002 10:42:13 PM EDT by Noname]
Link Posted: 1/22/2002 1:27:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2002 1:29:12 PM EDT by Tuukka]
The picture(dont know if it shows since Webshot has been acting wierd lately) i linked is of a 7.62x51 caliber MG42 or a more proper name would be a MG42/59 or MG74, different names for the post WW2 era MG42s are used, not to mention the MG3 in German service.

I believe the weapons sold here are ex Austrian army machineguns.

It sure is a quick bastard to shoot



Link Posted: 2/11/2002 10:30:13 AM EDT
Yes, we are still using the MG3 (equal to the MG42, only little changes like the flash suppressor) in the German Army.

The photo shows me last Saturday on the range. We also shot the new HK P8 (a USP with different selector) which is the actual service pistol.

Top Top