Mg34 vs. Mg42 The 34 is more accurate than the 42 and has the selictive-fire option. The mg42 has a higher ROF than the 34 and is less accurate than the 34. The 42 is more relible than the 34 but lacks the selictive-fire. I would Take the 34 if i was on the western front and the 42 in the desert and the eastern front.

__________________

LOL I realize that you are a new poster here . But may I direct your attention to the Weapons forum?,

Weapons in WWII - World War II Forums

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

When your 34 jams due to it's finely machined parts objecting to that Western dust, Desert sand, and Eastern mud you may find yourself wishing you'd listened to the salesman and gone for the admittedly less stylish but rather more robust 42 .

Cheers,
Adam.
(& welcome aboard)

__________________
It's only the Internet.

and less accurate

__________________

accuratcy counts

__________________

i am in the weapons forum.

__________________

Accuracy does count, but both weapons satisfied the WaA, so they both came within very stringent levels of accuracy. Both were quite capable of throwing heavy fire downrange in that all important second or two before the targets take cover, but one was more reliable, and therefore replaced the other as soon as it was available, while the other was applied to less demanding roles.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

You originally posted this thread in the WWII General Forum. It was moved here as being more appropriate as to the subject.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

i see

__________________

Too much accuracy isn't good for you. The Bren supposedly had to be 'wiggled around' to avoid having all the bullets going in the same hole

__________________

And the extra bullets in the air by the MG42 ensured a better cone of supression and a more saturated area than the MG34...


Cheers...

THIS I can confirm.

Years ago I had a BREN on my Dutch license (a miracle when keeping in mind Dutch laws, and that caused me a lot of trouble later.. but that's another story).

This Bren was soooo accurate that the fun was soon gone. On our range, I could shoot a whole mag through a coins size hole (single shot firing of course - with no time limit!).

__________________
Hans
WW2 airdropped and shelled propaganda leaflets
ww2propaganda.eu

I don't know about the MG34 being more accurate than the MG42, unless it's because of the semi auto capability. I never had any problem hitting the target with either of the guns, but a belt-fed MG was never meant to replace a rifle or sniper rifle for accuracy. Neither the 34 nor the 42 were designed with accuracy as a primary goal. They were used as bullet hoses, and while both performed very well in that role, the MG42's higher rate of fire was considered an advantage in combat. The Germans were there, and that's what they say in their manuals. I'll take their word for it.

Both guns when used in the heavy machine gun role (tripod mounted) were equal in accuracy (same tripod except for the way the gun mounted. In the assault mode (carried in hand), both were to be shot in quick bursts of 5-7 shots. (Source: MG42 manual Merkblatt 41/18.) When using short bursts, again, the accuracy is the same, providing a "cone of fire" (German term) rather than the more accurate but less destructive rifle.

The reason the MG34 was used for armored vehicles was because the gun mount would attach to the barrel jacket of the MG34 and the barrel could still be changed. The MG34 is hinged in the middle on it's longitudinal axis, and the rear half of the receiver could be twisted out of the way for barrel change without removing the gun from the mount. The MG42 barrel comes out the right side, so if it were mounted in a ball mount, it would have to be withdrawn within the vehicle to get the barrel out. This is the reason that the MG42 never completely replaced the MG34. The MG34 was in production to the end of the war.

For durability and a minimal failure rate (extremely important to you when your world turns to crap), the MG42 is a simpler design and less prone to failure. The bolt of the MG34 is far more complicated, and takes at least twice as much labor with higher quality metals to produce. I'll agree that the MG34 looks a little more exotic in a StarWars kind of way.

The MG42 can have a barrel changed (after 250 rounds) in about 6 seconds with an experienced gunner. The MG34 takes about 10 seconds. Both are far superior to the US competition of the day, the Browning 1919A4, which had to be partly disassembled and have the headspace reset after the change. Bolt/extractor/ejector failures could be fixed in 15 seconds by exchanging the bolt. Again, far superior to the 1919A4.

The MG42 is still made today, with a few, very slight improvements, and is now called the MG3. The MG3 shoots 7.62x51mm ammo instead of the original 8mm Mauser, but a caliber change to or from 8MM can be done in about a minute (really). Just change the barrel, booster nozzle, feed tray and top cover to change calibers. Italy even made a kit for shooting .223 in it. With a 1,200 rounds per minute rate of fire, it's a devastating piece of hardware, which puts the current SAW weapons of the US military to shame. It certainly was superior to the M60, but then, most other belt fed guns are. For suppressing fire, more lead in the air is better.

MG42 drawbacks? Carrying the ammo to feed it. No semi function, but a quick pull and release of the trigger can limit the gun to two shots with a little experience.

MG34 drawbacks? Difficult and expensive to make, more prone to failure due to more complicated design (bolt and trigger assembly). As a squad automatic weapon, semi auto fire is an unused accessory, which complicates the trigger mechanism and makes it more likely to jam or fail.

Croatia still makes direct copies of the MG42 in the 8mm Mauser caliber
The MG34 in semi auto was as accurate as a Kar rifle (effective range 700m) if I recal correctly.


Cheers...

not near as accurate as the 98k

__________________

Yes, it would be very odd if a MG could be as accurate as a Kar98k.

Well, the effective range of the Kar was around 700 meters as well. I think what they mean by effective range is what you can hit in battle conditions or something.

Cheers...