Who has one of these?

setlab · Post by **setlab** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:11 pm

Found this on Numrich's site, $25

Looks interesting but how would it mount to the gun?

Post by **Bil** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:15 pm

What is it? ---bil

setlab · Post by **setlab** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:22 pm

Says it's a German MG-42 / MG-1 / MG-3 Night Vision Scope Mount

Post by **TOM R** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:50 pm

not sure but it looks like there is a mounting plate not includedthat would slide into

setlab · Post by **setlab** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:57 pm

Would make for a awesome MG3 build to have some kind of optics on the gun. What do the Germans do? I'm sure they still don't primarily use iron sights do they?

Post by **JBaum** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:58 pm

Might I suggest that it mounts the same way the other optics mounts do..... on the Lafette and not on the gun. When you're shooting 25 shots a second, trying to look through optics mounted on the gun itself is a little difficult. Yup, they use the iron sights, or pull the trigger and adjust the gun by watching where the bullets hit. They're not shooting an MG3 because they can hit something at 500 yards on the first shot. You don't drive a semi because it's easy to park, and an MG3 is not to be confused for a target rifle.

KMURPHY · Post by **KMURPHY** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:47 am

jbaum wrote:Might I suggest that it mounts the same way the other optics mounts do..... on the Lafette and not on the gun. When you're shooting 25 shots a second, trying to look through optics mounted on the gun itself is a little difficult. Yup, they use the iron sights, or pull the trigger and adjust the gun by watching where the bullets hit. They're not shooting an MG3 because they can hit something at 500 yards on the first shot. You don't drive a semi because it's easy to park, and an MG3 is not to be confused for a target rifle.

Very nicely worded Jbaum

setlab · Post by **setlab** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:00 am

True, but I find it a little hard to believe today's German army is that far behind the learning curve and relies 100% on irons. Optics are a force multiplier, it almost sounds stupid to me why they wouldn't have something mounted. Even at 25rnds a sec, speaking of that don't they use the heavier bolt now days, to slow that rate of fire down?

Post by **fjruple** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:21 am

setlab--

What is the part number and description or web link for that part? I am looking for something like that to mount my AN/PVS-1B to my MG3 Mount.

Thanks

--fjruple

setlab · Post by **setlab** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:44 am

http://www.e-gunparts.com/DisplayAd.asp ... erSKU=&MC=

Model: MG-42/MG-1/MG-3 MG-42/MG-1/MG-3
Item No. 979400
Retail Price: $24.95

Post by **MCP** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:55 am

Remember not all armies/militaries have optics on all of their MGs. I'm sure if they have them they will implement them, as usual it's situation dependent.

Post by **JBaum** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:37 am

setlab wrote:True, but I find it a little hard to believe today's German army is that far behind the learning curve and relies 100% on irons. Optics are a force multiplier, it almost sounds stupid to me why they wouldn't have something mounted. Even at 25rnds a sec, speaking of that don't they use the heavier bolt now days, to slow that rate of fire down?

At 25 shots a second, you don't need something mounted. The gun is too heavy to fire from the shoulder, so putting a scope on it is ridiculous since you can't look through it when you're carrying it anyway. If it's going to be fired at greater distances or from a stationay position, it's set up on a Bipod or Lafette. The gun shakes too much when firing to be practical to mount the scope to it, so firing from the Bipod, the scope would be useless anyway. On the Lafette, the scope is useful, and it has the scope mounted on it. They are wise not to put bells and whistles on it that would only get in the way. I have yet to see a scope on a Mini-gun....

"behind the learning curve" ???? thats a litte harsh on the people who invented a gun that is so exceptional it's still in use and being manufactured virtually unchanged after 65 years. There isn't a modern military rifle still being used in any army after 65 years except for the MG42. The AK47 isn't even that old. This tells me that for it's purpose, it is at the top of the food chain. I think their learning curve is peaked at the top, and they're smart enough to stay there.

The heavy bolt is a development of the Austrians. Most people who have tried the heavy bolt take it out after they see it beating the gun to death just to save on ammo. If you're in the army, replacement guns and maintenance aren't that big a deal. But at $40,000 each for a transferrable, longevity is very important and the heavy bolt just isn't conducive to a long service life.

Accuracy is good in the MG42, but that's not the purpose of having a gun with that rate of fire.

According to the original manuals, when used for assaults the MG42 was to be shot in 3 to 5 round bursts at close targets. If you can put out 5 shots in 1/5 of a second without having to shoulder the weapon to aim, you're likely to eliminate the target faster than he can shoulder his weapon, aim, and fire once to eliminate you.

The gun is designed for its purpose. Restating the purpose then saying the gun is ineffective isn't a making a valid point. Scopes aren't on a lot of guns, from the Mod. 92 Beretta to the Mini-gun. You don't need a brass catcher on a single shot rifle, and you don't need a scope mount on an MG42.

-M60_Gunner- · Post by **-M60_Gunner-** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:40 am

jbaum wrote:
setlab wrote:True, but I find it a little hard to believe today's German army is that far behind the learning curve and relies 100% on irons. Optics are a force multiplier, it almost sounds stupid to me why they wouldn't have something mounted. Even at 25rnds a sec, speaking of that don't they use the heavier bolt now days, to slow that rate of fire down?
At 25 shots a second, you don't need something mounted. The gun is too heavy to fire from the shoulder, so putting a scope on it is ridiculous since you can't look through it when you're carrying it anyway. If it's going to be fired at greater distances or from a stationay position, it's set up on a Bipod or Lafette. The gun shakes too much when firing to be practical to mount the scope to it, so firing from the Bipod, the scope would be useless anyway. On the Lafette, the scope is useful, and it has the scope mounted on it. They are wise not to put bells and whistles on it that would only get in the way. I have yet to see a scope on a Mini-gun....

"behind the learning curve" ???? thats a litte harsh on the people who invented a gun that is so exceptional it's still in use and being manufactured virtually unchanged after 65 years. There isn't a modern military rifle still being used in any army after 65 years except for the MG42. The AK47 isn't even that old. This tells me that for it's purpose, it is at the top of the food chain. I think their learning curve is peaked at the top, and they're smart enough to stay there.

The heavy bolt is a development of the Austrians. Most people who have tried the heavy bolt take it out after they see it beating the gun to death just to save on ammo. If you're in the army, replacement guns and maintenance aren't that big a deal. But at $40,000 each for a transferrable, longevity is very important and the heavy bolt just isn't conducive to a long service life.

Accuracy is good in the MG42, but that's not the purpose of having a gun with that rate of fire.

According to the original manuals, when used for assaults the MG42 was to be shot in 3 to 5 round bursts at close targets. If you can put out 5 shots in 1/5 of a second without having to shoulder the weapon to aim, you're likely to eliminate the target faster than he can shoulder his weapon, aim, and fire once to eliminate you.

The gun is designed for its purpose. Restating the purpose then saying the gun is ineffective isn't a making a valid point. Scopes aren't on a lot of guns, from the Mod. 92 Beretta to the Mini-gun. You don't need a brass catcher on a single shot rifle, and you don't need a scope mount on an MG42.

How dare you use fact and logic in an emotionally charged argument!

joshk98k · Post by **joshk98k** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:44 pm

hahahahahahahaha!!!! M60! I have wanted to post that exact same thing on about 20 different boards.

setlab · Post by **setlab** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:09 pm

Well to put it this way, every 240B I ever shot except one I think had optics and I might add do serve there purpose well, and you don't fire that thing from the shoulder. The mg does have the Lafette, yes but that does have limited tactical value unless your stuck in a fixed position. Mini guns are a total different breed though with that rate of fire and about a 5000 round hopper of ammo beside them with tracers in the mix daytime shooting is nothing, but yes they do have aiming devices on them. I say behind the learning curve because today there are a lot more "modernized" army's out there fact is optics are force magnifiers, probably the simplest way to put it. And I don't know if the average soldier using a mg3 can really make out what he's shooting at at 1500+ m, I know I wouldn't have near the efficiency rate without optics. You sure would hate to be a mg3 ag also, the amount of rounds they have to carry around just to be wasted wile the gunner tries to walk the rounds on target. Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the weapon system at all, great gun but there are better weapons to be found (whether they are economically feasible or not for them is something different). After 65 years you would think someone would modernise the mg42/mg3 platform a lot more then they already have. You make some great points though but I think your more mind set "back in WWII that how they did it and it worked fine" (not to start any hard feelings or anything) but there is always room for improvement and coming in at second in a fire fight is something I never want to do. Especially when the odds can be shifted my way with the addition of better equipment, and I know some might say equipment is no substitute for experience I know but that's why we call stuff like that force modifiers.

joshk98k · Post by **joshk98k** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:43 pm

I am confused. How could you use a scope attached to an MG42? after 1 round you wouldn't be able to see anything, correct? Isn't that why the Lafette has the optics mounted to that? Beside, the Lafette is very mobile and can be broken down into a backpack in about 20 seconds.

What am I missing??? I know I'm missing some point here.

:-P

josh

Post by **fjruple** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:54 pm

setlab--

Thanks. I am ordering one for my H&K MG3 tripod.

--Frank

Post by **88comm** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:33 pm

Two thoughts - one, how much knock down does a .30 have at a mile? (or is it really worth sighting at that distance with that light a bullet?)

Two, JBaum asked about a modern military rifle still being used after 65 years - well, if the '42 isn't really a shoulder weapon then the only others in that catagory were designed by some guy named Browning in 1921. I think we have versions in .30 and .50 caliber...
But he is right- it is a pretty short list.

8mm-man · Post by **8mm-man** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:16 pm

I don't know about the 7.62 at a mile, but the 7.92 had trials before wwI where it knocked horses over at close to a mile-that was a criteria it had to meet for the ordnance department.
I still think the 7.92x57 is the best cartridge ever devised by man, and has the record for the most kills in history.
And the Maxim during WWI racked up most of those.

A quote from "Small Arms of the World" 1983:
"The Maxim may have the doubtful honor of killing more people than any other military instrument designed by man"

I wonder if, in the future, there will be another war and another mg to top that one.......I hope not. I truly hope not.

Post by **IMBLITZVT** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:51 pm

I can see both sides on this one. The 1919a4 can take a scope... However except for maybe a red-dot/eotech style scope, it would be a waste. I might see some kind of high-vis scope system working out. More for moving from one target to the next... rather then holding the gun on target.

.... then again... you can just spray to you get them... and spend the extra money on ammo. Then you do not have to worry about breaking a scope system.

MG08 had a scope mounted to the side of the gun...