All--
I think the mounting of a scope on a GPMG is a matter of different theories as to the use of a GPMG in combat. I have attached a photo of a Danish MG3 with has a rail mounted on the top cover.
--fjruple
Yea!! the a hot female Danish soldier!!!
Who has one of these?
-
_RAGNAR_
The 42 can be shot off of both a vehicle (pintle) mount and of the bipod with a modern optic or night vision attached.setlab wrote:Yes, thank you... a wonder why there aren't more pics like that one.
Most these guys don't understand the field of view or the exit pupil that modern optics have or how well you can shoot a MG with one. An example of this is the ELCAN, you have no problem seeing through it even with the gun bouncing around.
As you know you can still stop your burst if you loose your ability to see.
I think the MG42 is still awesome, but you are right if you really want it to be a GPMG in the modern fight you need optics (day and night) and rail mounts for lasers. It's a bit front heavy and a little long for patroling in comparision to the 240B but it is still a great MG. The 42 mounted on the tripod is of little value for 90% of what we now do.
-
TOM R
- Field Marshal
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:11 pm
- Anti-spam: Mg42
- Location: ESCAPED FROM Nazi Jersey, !!!
you know we see all the nice pics of current production mg42 weapons in use by other armies around the world and i just can't help but wonder why the hell we are still using junk, hell the mg42 is like a 60 year old design and is still better then anything we got in that size, guess that is the cost of capitalizm, rant off 
Great men are born in fire, it is the privilege of lessor men to light the flame, no matter the cost
FOR M60 GOTO http://WWW.M60MG.COM
nra lifer
mvpa 31698
46 cj2a
54 m37
56 CJ3B U.S. Navy
t24/m29 weasel
FOR M60 GOTO http://WWW.M60MG.COM
nra lifer
mvpa 31698
46 cj2a
54 m37
56 CJ3B U.S. Navy
t24/m29 weasel
Interesting discussion here:
I have seen some intesting modifications to the MG3 lateley by a few enterprising Bundeswehr soldiers. Mostly an EO tech mount that has been used in Afganistan.
After talking to Bundeswehr and Norwegian soldiers (and a few of US army soldiers that have used this weapon in Iraq) about the MG3 here are some observations:
For squad level purposes in the Bundeswehr for the most part the MG3 is being phased out in favor of the MG4 (I believe that is the nomenclature for the new 5.56mm HK built system) as I understand it.
The MG3 while being a great gun is not liked that much because of its weight (a complaint for most soldiers in any army that have to carry a machinegun all day so that is taken with a grain of salt).
No decent method for extended carry or assault carry; the current "sling" -if you want to call it that (same as WWII style) is pretty much universally hated. The receiver gets hot enough to want to discourage carrying in a comfortable assault position
Optics mounting can be useful-while personally I don't like it (magnification type optics that is). It does give some advantages at longer ranges where field of view is larger and targets are more indistinct. As to the high rates of fire, yes it is not conducive for accuracy on long bursts but when you are on target and are firing 5 round bursts it probably works quite well. Secondly on a MG42 the rate of fire is 25 rounds a second, on a MG3 it 17-20 rounds a second so there is some difference.
A decent PEQ-2 or equivalent mount is a neat thing to have on one of these weapons.
The tripod is not handy to use and is way too bulky. While in a sustained fire role it is one of the best out there I would not want to carry one. A friend of mine in Iraq retrofitted an M60 pintle to work, so a MG3 could used from a US pintle adapter on a vehicle mount or US type tripod.
A Picatinney rail system would be appreciated by most it seems also.
Perhaps the Danish wanted a night vision system to be mounted on the MG3s? So that could be why there is a rail adapter on the that pic. I'll be talking to the Danes soon and hopefully I can talk them out of one of those top covers for my MG at work.
I have been trying to help some German soldiers adapt their MG3s to some of the above wants and needs.
I have seen some intesting modifications to the MG3 lateley by a few enterprising Bundeswehr soldiers. Mostly an EO tech mount that has been used in Afganistan.
After talking to Bundeswehr and Norwegian soldiers (and a few of US army soldiers that have used this weapon in Iraq) about the MG3 here are some observations:
For squad level purposes in the Bundeswehr for the most part the MG3 is being phased out in favor of the MG4 (I believe that is the nomenclature for the new 5.56mm HK built system) as I understand it.
The MG3 while being a great gun is not liked that much because of its weight (a complaint for most soldiers in any army that have to carry a machinegun all day so that is taken with a grain of salt).
No decent method for extended carry or assault carry; the current "sling" -if you want to call it that (same as WWII style) is pretty much universally hated. The receiver gets hot enough to want to discourage carrying in a comfortable assault position
Optics mounting can be useful-while personally I don't like it (magnification type optics that is). It does give some advantages at longer ranges where field of view is larger and targets are more indistinct. As to the high rates of fire, yes it is not conducive for accuracy on long bursts but when you are on target and are firing 5 round bursts it probably works quite well. Secondly on a MG42 the rate of fire is 25 rounds a second, on a MG3 it 17-20 rounds a second so there is some difference.
A decent PEQ-2 or equivalent mount is a neat thing to have on one of these weapons.
The tripod is not handy to use and is way too bulky. While in a sustained fire role it is one of the best out there I would not want to carry one. A friend of mine in Iraq retrofitted an M60 pintle to work, so a MG3 could used from a US pintle adapter on a vehicle mount or US type tripod.
A Picatinney rail system would be appreciated by most it seems also.
Perhaps the Danish wanted a night vision system to be mounted on the MG3s? So that could be why there is a rail adapter on the that pic. I'll be talking to the Danes soon and hopefully I can talk them out of one of those top covers for my MG at work.
I have been trying to help some German soldiers adapt their MG3s to some of the above wants and needs.
Yes, I agree the M240 is not a bad design at all, overall an excellent design. I myself still prefer the MG3. The M240 is a very durable well thought out and extremely reliable design. I don't like having to carry the M240 further than to my humvee though. It is a brick in the carrying arena but it does have a better sling arrangement. The 240 is only usable from either a bipod, tripod or vehicle mount in my opinion. While some might argue about shoulder firing an MG or "Asssault Firing" I think it is important that a weapon points well. From a vehicle mounted aspect if I never had to dismount the M240 it is just fine.
To me the major sticking point with the M240 is that it is a step backwards, more back to the 1919 idea-heavy and only really employable in the support fire role. But I guess since the M249 SAW was adopted 7.62mm weapon systems have become platoon/company level weapons again.
I would rather carry a MG3, or a PKM than a M240 though in a dismounted role. The M60 in my opinion was a terrible design but it had one advantage over the M240 for dismount, You could actually carry the thing and it seemed more compact and "carry" better. But my plan if the balloon ever had gone up was to ditch my M60 and get a MG3 or a PKM ASAP.
As for reliability I would have to say the M240 is a shade more reliable than an MG3 but not enough for me to justify the extra 2.5 pounds and the ungainliness of the M240.
Just My .02
To me the major sticking point with the M240 is that it is a step backwards, more back to the 1919 idea-heavy and only really employable in the support fire role. But I guess since the M249 SAW was adopted 7.62mm weapon systems have become platoon/company level weapons again.
I would rather carry a MG3, or a PKM than a M240 though in a dismounted role. The M60 in my opinion was a terrible design but it had one advantage over the M240 for dismount, You could actually carry the thing and it seemed more compact and "carry" better. But my plan if the balloon ever had gone up was to ditch my M60 and get a MG3 or a PKM ASAP.
As for reliability I would have to say the M240 is a shade more reliable than an MG3 but not enough for me to justify the extra 2.5 pounds and the ungainliness of the M240.
Just My .02