Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by the_diego, Mar 26, 2019.
Aside from figuring out the mechanical feasibility, how much better would one shoot in that case?
I do not know about a 30 cal,but read up on USMC sniper Carlos(White Feather) Hathcock mounting a Unertl scope on a M-2 (.50BMG) Browning while in VN. I believe he took out his target at a great distance.
Yes he did, and others have done so since. Works good because the BMG can be set to fire single rounds. I don't know if the .30 cal can, it has a different action.
The unspecified state reaction team that has my .50 on long term loan mounted a sight on it and let me try it out during the annual "fam fire" training they have. (It's conveniently located near a local prison, just so the guys can hear a heavy MG in action.) The results were ... scary. They fire from one hill top to another.
I think I read somewhere that various types of enhanced sights were in fairly common use with modern mgs including both 5.56 and 7.62. According to articles I've read on the strategy page single shot mode has been used with them quite effectively.
Accuracy with the .50BMG is all in the mount. In single shot mode, with a secure mount, you can seriously get in tight. You just don't see it that often.
I picked up a few things from a one-legged Marine while I was high school. That stuck fast.
Will a 7.92 do?
Russki scope, if the caption was to be believed.
Though the more I look at it, the more I wonder at its veracity.
Hmmm....it looks like that scope is mounted on the feed tray and there's no ammo belt in place so I too am sceptical! However, that looks like an MG34, which could fire single shots. Putting a scope on a full-auto-only piece is nonsensical. Only the first round would be accurate. Then the barrel vibration would scatter rounds all over the vicinity and any hit on the target would be random chance. MGs are made for massive firepower, not accuracy.
Hathcock's 50 BMG hit may have had a lot of luck involved. Regular 50 ball ammo isn't very accurate-it doesn't have to be. If you want sniper grade accuracy, get a Barrett and feed it good ammo (at 5USD a pop) and then you have something that even Carlos would have lusted after!
Guns that lock up precisely seem to be more accurate. Most autoloaders have to be a bit looser to accommodate heat and variations due to their nature. Several bolt action based rifles shooting M-2 rounds are quite accurate but I have never seen any accuracy figures for an M-2. Even when set to single fire the mount, as mentioned above would be critical. the barrel essentially free floated, not a bad thing. The trigger would have to break cleanly and precisely. the scope improves the sighting but if the gun and ammunition are not accurate the good effects of the scope would be negated. The average machine gun, be it 5.56, 7.62 ot 12.6 was never intended to be an accuracy based weapon and not the best platform for such . The rounds, themselves would be best hand loaded. Would really love to know the field accuracy on a true machinegun. Anecdotal stories aside.
Japanese Type 92 heavy MG, which I saw just now.
HMG is an SOB.
MG-42, but that was the heavy weapon version with the tripod mount and it was 7.92 mm.
..well, depends on the terrain [ desert/mountains/etc vs jungle, etc ] ....how far away is your target that you can see? the M1919 effective range is 1500 yds? at 500 yards, our iron sights on the M16A1 just about covered a man sized target...so if you are firing at that distance or longer, I would think a scope would be much ''better''' than an iron sight --especially if the target/targets are camoed up/behind cover/hiding/etc ....
..in the jungle, you probably would not want a scope ...I would think you would need a scope in a Monte Cassino type area