WWII German vs. US auto weapons

[MarikinaMan]

[audiophil2]

A little biased. I should make a similar video.

The first time I shot my mg42 I actually felt remorse for having it. It is very accurate and light enough to move around easily. The quick change barrels allow it to run forever. It is very easy to strip and clean. I would never want to be in front of it. I could strafe out to 1000 yards and hit just about anything with little effort.

My 1919 is horrible in a6 configuration. The stock is painful and it is very heavy. In a4 configuration it is pretty good when mounted on a very sturdy tripod. It needs a hard mount really. The slower rate is only easier on the wallet. I like it but the weight of the gun plus tripod and time to set up keeps it in the safe. I can drop the mg42 in soft case and carry it in one hand and a 200 round can in the other. I have to tried it on my Aa tripod.

The Tommy is a nightmare to shoot. Heavy and clunky to operate. Mags are like carrying bricks. My sten is so much nicer but the mag is bad for hallways. I only shot the German subguns on indoor ranges so I don't know how much easier they are to maneuver.

[GimpsUnlimited]

Like what Phil said, very biased war time propaganda. It was meant to "ease" the fear of our soldiers before going to the front. But all of them learned real quick MG42's bark more than matched its bite. Can't imagine what it felt like going up against several nests of them.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[MarikinaMan]

^^ thanks for sharing your input you two.

[81turbota]

I haven't shot an MG42, but I shot its nephew the MG3 in Afghanistan. Slightly slower ROF (still very, very fast) and 7.62x51. It was a hell of a good weapon, easy to operate and control.

The MG42 didn't get it's nickname the "bone saw" for nothing....

I have an original 1944 Mauser Borgiswalde MG42 parts kit that I'll be building up as a semi. As close as a California plebeian can get to owning a "real" one.

[Carcassonne]

Numbers produced.

MG34 #577,120
MG42 #423,600

US BAR #351,700
US M1919 #5 million - most were probably mounted on vehicle, tanks, planes, ships, boats, etc.



.

[Waffleobill]

"Remember, their bark is worse than their bite."

[Bobby Ricigliano]

I reckon the MG42 superiority over the 1919 was mitigated somewhat by the Garand's superiority over the K98. The MP40 would have been severely handicapped by its lack of range and power, and the STG44 arrived too late to make any real difference.

An MG42 is most definitely on my wishlist!

[audiophil2]

I changed my MG42 over to MG3 parts. It's so simple and cheap other than finding barrels for it. I have 5 barrels so hopefully they will last a few years.

NSFW
MG42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaXYKM0nwNk

1919
This runs like a top.

[sigstroker]

I reckon the MG42 superiority over the 1919 was mitigated somewhat by the Garand's superiority over the K98. The MP40 would have been severely handicapped by its lack of range and power, and the STG44 arrived too late to make any real difference.

An MG42 is most definitely on my wishlist!

The biggest advantage the MG42 has is not the cyclic rate, it's the quick change barrels. Can't change them at all on 1919's. It just dictated different ways to use them. You can really lean on the MG42 trigger, have to use short bursts on the 1919. Unless you're in a bomber and the airflow around the airplane keeps your barrel cool.

BTW the sights suck on an MG42. They're like an AK almost. Haven't shot a 1919, but U.S. guns almost always have the best sights.

[Skip_Dog]

@ 9:10
"That's the way an enemy machine gun position should look"
Priceless.

[Che762x39]

I enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing.

[audiophil2]

The biggest advantage the MG42 has is not the cyclic rate, it's the quick change barrels. Can't change them at all on 1919's. It just dictated different ways to use them. You can really lean on the MG42 trigger, have to use short bursts on the 1919. Unless you're in a bomber and the airflow around the airplane keeps your barrel cool.

BTW the sights suck on an MG42. They're like an AK almost. Haven't shot a 1919, but U.S. guns almost always have the best sights.

Both guns will heat soak the barrels quickly. Short bursts hardly make much of a difference. Unless the MG42 is deployed with 10+ barrels and a container of coolant or oil to dip them into they will stay hot for quite awhile. Same thing with the 1919. It won't last much longer. The 1919 barrel can be removed as a complete unit. It is way more complicated to work on though.

Based on only my limited civilian use the MG42 advantage is in the weight and cyclic rate. "Shootability" is probably the biggest advantage. Those "AK" style sights you think suck are so much better than the 1919 sights. The 1919 sights are a good design but the sight radius and bouncing effect of the gun makes them useless. I only use them to get a basic area of fire and then use bullet splash to aim. The MG42 sights are so far from each other the gun can be used as a 2-4 round burst rifle. It also pushes directly backward since it is too heavy for muzzle rise. It's like shooting a really heavy AR10 with iron sights.

[Von_Richthofen]

I changed my MG42 over to MG3 parts. It's so simple and cheap other than finding barrels for it. I have 5 barrels so hopefully they will last a few years.

NSFW
MG42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaXYKM0nwNk

1919
This runs like a top.

On my semi 42 I just changed the barrel and added the feed tray spacer and it ran like a champ! Agreed on the range limiting the MP40 but I love shooting it none the less and my FG42 and PTR44 very sweet indeed! America went for numbers and expedient manufacture while the Germans built Swiss watches you could shoot until the war pushed them into make it yesterday with forced labor.

[Von_Richthofen]

Both guns will heat soak the barrels quickly. Short bursts hardly make much of a difference. Unless the MG42 is deployed with 10+ barrels and a container of coolant or oil to dip them into they will stay hot for quite awhile. Same thing with the 1919. It won't last much longer. The 1919 barrel can be removed as a complete unit. It is way more complicated to work on though.

Based on only my limited civilian use the MG42 advantage is in the weight and cyclic rate. "Shootability" is probably the biggest advantage. Those "AK" style sights you think suck are so much better than the 1919 sights. The 1919 sights are a good design but the sight radius and bouncing effect of the gun makes them useless. I only use them to get a basic area of fire and then use bullet splash to aim. The MG42 sights are so far from each other the gun can be used as a 2-4 round burst rifle. It also pushes directly backward since it is too heavy for muzzle rise. It's like shooting a really heavy AR10 with iron sights.

My first rifle to hunt with was a K98 so sights on my 42 not an issue for me. I must say though I love using the optics when my 42 goes full lafette!