WWII small arms

small-arms casualties in both wars (and subsequent wholesale shooting wars) accounted for only 5% of total war casualties. outside of the navy, airforce and heavy land weapons, the significant killers were machine guns, mortars, grenade and rocket launchers.

the above already implies 'no' to the question but then, there are those who say the 5% killed by small arms is the crucial 5% in a war.

 

I own a yugo 1945 mauser8mm.
Its a beuty to shoot, the way it kicks up in the barrel, like alot of guns i know, but i like to shoot it at the "farm"

In my JROTC unit, we drill with m1's but you cant shoot um. The firing pin wasnt takin out, but i cant remember what it was that made um de-militarized................

 

M-60 is a general purpose machine gun suitable for firing 7.62 NATO ammunition. It is an out-come of series of experimental designs developed after World War-II. First, belt feed mechanism of German MG-42 and operating technique of German rifle FG-42 was combined into a machine gun called T-44. It was modified to Model T-52 which after considerable modifications took the shape of M-60. However, feed mechanism of MG-42 and operating mechanism of FG-42 were retained except that M-60 is only automatic while FG-42 has also single fire setting. It may be mentioned that FG-42 had a bolt system which was developed from U.S. Lewis gun used in World War-I. M-60 is a gas operated weapon with short stroke piston. It is used as light machine gun on bipod and as heavy machine gun on tripod. M-61E1 Machine Gun is a modified version of M-60. In M-60E1 barrel change has been simplified and number of parts has also been decreased. Some other modifications have also been carried out.

4e.Present-day Small Arms « Û” Û” Reality is Often Bitter Û” Û” حقيقت اکثرتلخ ہوتی ہے Û”​

 

M-60 and MG-42:

Similarities:

A: Both have a pistol-style hand grip underneath a bipod mounted barrel.
B: Both are fully automatic squad weapons (AKA, one or two per squad).
C: Both are belt-fed.
D: Both use the same ammunition as thier riflemen comrades; the M-60 and the M-16 both take 7.62mm rounds, and the MG-42 and Kar-98K both take 7.92mm rounds.

Differences:

A: The M-60 uses a 7.62mm cartridge, or .30 caliber, smaller than the 7.92mm Mauser round used by the MG-42 and German infantry rifles.
B: The MG-42 has a much faster rate of fire than the MG-42.
C: The MG-42 can in some instances be equipped with telescopic sights, allowing engagements of over a mile. This was not possible with the M-60.
D: The obvious, such as nationality, designers, producers, etc etc etc.

 

Just want to point out that the M-16 uses the 5.56mmx54 NATO round not the 7.62X51mm NATO round . And also I have never heard of the MG-42 of being issued or using a "scope" during the war. Do you have any sources for that? Or do you mean the sight for use in the AA role? The modern MG3 used by Germany today can be fitted with EOTech holosight red-dot optics though.

 

I watched are documentary on the MG42 the other week and they meantioned a sight that could be used for long distance shooting.

 

I have heard of the MGZ34 and MGZ40 optics. But they arent used like a scope when firing per se. They are more of a range finder. Can you imagine trying to keep your eye on it while firing a machine gun LOL.

 

Here is one with it 'attached'

 

Are you sure about the 5.56mm? I read and looked up that the M-60 is .30 cal

Also, I read about the MG-42 sight thing in a book on infantry tactics, which was adapted from several German training manuals from the 1940's. I assume that it could have been used for the AA role.

 

The M-60 is 7.62 NATO but the M-16 uses 5.56 NATO rounds.

 

is the m.60 machine gun a belt feed gun if so .i can remember using one
at a training day a wile back lots of fun and very noisy ..mw

 

Oh, okay, then that part is wrong. I probably got the M-16 ammo confused with the M-14 ammo (which is .30 caliber).

 

M60 SAW

 

Most positively The M-60 and the M-14 use 7.62x51 mm NATO (.308 Winchester) rounds. And the M-16 the 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington), M193 round.

 

You missed the most important difference: that they use entirely different operating mechanisms, based on entirely different principles.

The M60 is gas-operated: there's a hole part-way down the barrel from which some of the propellant gas is tapped off into a cylinder running parallel with the barrel. This gas drives a piston down the barrel, and this in turn drives the operating mechanism.

The MG 42 is recoil-operated: each time the gun fires, the recoil causes the barrel and action to recoil in the receiver. After a few millimetres, the bolt is unlocked from the barrel by disengaging roller-locking devices which link the two, the barrel is stopped and the bolt continues rearwards by itself to complete the loading cycle.

That's about as different as MG actions can get.

 

Damn, i have seen a picture of a scope on a MG42. And not one of those range finders, a sniper-rifles scope. Ill see if i can dig it up for you guys.

Edit:

Double Damn, i was wrong. It was those telescopic/ranger finder sights. I should learn not to object the facts told on this forum.

*Click it*
Heres the pic, thought you guys might get a kick out of it anyway.

It is from the Eastern Front.

P.S That is a great set of photos from the eastern front, check the album.

 

That's actually the M249 SAW a licensed version of the FN MINIMI the current squad level weapon of the US (and a good portion of NATO as well).

 

In the Royal Artillery (NS) I fired the Enfield and the Sten. My Enfield was zero'd to me as I was in the Regimental team, we missed going to Bisley by one point! At 200 yards I could get a 2" group, ten rounds rapid I regularly got a 4" group. I did not like the Sten! I did not fire the Bren until my RAF service. One thing that niggled me, I had my marksman badge in the Army and the RAF, the Army 1s 2p, (6p) per day but the RAF didn't pay anything!

Ken

 

My grandfather was in the Army in the 1950s (and was a cop for over 35 years afterwards) and fired many weapons from WWII. He said that the M1 Garand rifle was excellent, but the M1 Carbine was not as good; he said it couldn't hit anything, it was so much less accurate. I asked him wether the Grease Gun or the Thompson was better, and he replied that the Thompson was much better, but the Thompson jammed if you fired it for too long and that you could shoot the Grease Gun practically all day long.

 

I wish I could own my own gun, I have never fired any guns from WWII. Only Shotguns.