MG42 >< MG3?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Guest on Tue 29 Apr 2008 - 11:40

SO! I checked a catalog recently and have my self some leisure time checking the MG42 and comparing it with the MG3. Besides the muzzle, what difference does both weapon have against each other?

Both fire the same round, with a sheer terrifying rate of fire, both were used by the Germans, and I think both were made by Rheinmetall...

...so what's the difference in them?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Piero on Tue 29 Apr 2008 - 11:47

I'm not entirely sure as to what the exact minor differences, but I think the fact that they don't fire the same round is a fairly major one. MG-42s are in 7.92x57mm Mauser, MG-3s are in 7.62x51mm NATO. Other then that, not too sure about the differences. The fact that the two guns are similar can be attributed to the MG-3 being based on the MG-42.

Piero

Male

Forum Posts : 2617

Fan of : Full Metal Panic, Macross Frontier, Mai-HiME

Original Characters : Diana and Piero

Registration date : 2008-01-21

Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Guest on Tue 29 Apr 2008 - 12:59

MG-42s are in 7.92x57mm Mauser, MG-3s are in 7.62x51mm NATO. Other then that, not too sure about the differences. The fact that the two guns are similar can be attributed to the MG-3 being based on the MG-42.

Well, that's the point. If the MG42 uses a more powerful round, why use the MG3 who uses a weaker round? NATO standards? Then why not make a 7.92x57mm NATO round?

I don't see much difference in the gun...yet why would they create the MG3 other than housing the new round?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Nachtsider on Tue 29 Apr 2008 - 17:57

The MG3's an improved MG42 in many ways, people. It's got an adjustable rate of fire (the thing can fire at either 700-800 rpm or 1100-1200 rpm, compared to the MG42's unajustable 1100-1200 rpm), and it's made to higher standards of fit and finish. It can utilize both non-disintegrating and disintegrating ammo belts, while the MG42 can only utilize the first type. It has two points for bipod attachment (near the muzzle and near the center), as compared to the MG42's muzzle-mounted integral bipod. It utilizes 50-round ammo drums that are far lighter and more convenient than those utilized by the MG42. The barrel-change systems for the MG3 and MG42 are different - the MG42's barrel is quick-removable, while the MG3 requires a secure lock to be disengaged first. Also, the the MG3 can be mounted on many different types of tripod, while MG42 can only be mounted on a specific tripod (the Lafette 42).

And no - unlike the MG3, the MG42 wasn't a Rheinmetall. It was a Grossfuss.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------





There may be no peace for the wicked, but the righteous can damn well get a piece whenever they feel like it.
avatar
Nachtsider
KNIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
KNIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

Male

Forum Posts : 5718

Location : Inside your closet. In your head.

Fan of : Gunslinger Girl, Transformers: Animated

Original Characters : Liesel/Altheus, Meir/Kathryn, Aharon/Nadia, Cosette/Janus

Comments : The Living Legend. Master of Darkness. Trailblazer par excellence. Fear him.

Registration date : 2007-09-09

Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Wileama on Tue 29 Apr 2008 - 20:35

Hey that's some good info Nachtsider, thanks.

Panzer IV wrote:Well, that's the point. If the MG42 uses a more powerful round, why use the MG3 who uses a weaker round? NATO standards? Then why not make a 7.92x57mm NATO round?
I can't say I know for sure, I am just making an educated guess. I believe the 7.62 was more widely produced, at least in the USA, so it would be easier to standardize. Not to mention a less powerful round is also more controllable round. This is a round that wasn't just used in guns like the MG3, but a variety of lighter weapons as well. A more powerful round there would be more difficult to control.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strive for your next breath.  Believe that with it you can do more than with the last one.  Use your breath to power your capacities: capacity to kill, to maim, to destroy.

T-Minus 15.193792102158E+9 years until the universe closes!

Marathon
avatar
Wileama
Sith Lord

Male

Forum Posts : 1053

Fan of : Triela

Original Characters : Marcello

Comments : Everybody's favorite crew chief. Without him, the flyboys are powerless.

Registration date : 2007-09-21

Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by LoC978 on Tue 29 Apr 2008 - 21:38

*shrug*
same reason the US military stopped using the 30.06 in favor of the 7.62x51NATO... even though it's weaker, you can find it pretty much anywhere, worldwide.

oh, and for the record: 30.06>8mm mauser Razz

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Moderatio est figmentum.
avatar
LoC978
Beach Bum Revolutionary

Male

Forum Posts : 2628

Location : Northwestern USA. Usually Portland.

Fan of : At home- Claes. Abroad- Rico.

Registration date : 2007-09-10

Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Guest on Thu 1 May 2008 - 16:42

Panzer IV wrote:
Well, that's the point. If the MG42 uses a more powerful round, why use the MG3 who uses a weaker round? NATO standards? Then why not make a 7.92x57mm NATO round?

Appart from that I'm not sure that the 7.92 is more powerfull than the 7.62 (bullet dimensions aren't everything):

Because the standard NATO round had to be a standard for assault rifle round as well. High powered rounds render the full automatic capability of the relatively light assault rifles useless because of the recoil build-up and full automatic capability is just what the assault weapon concept is all about.

In fact the full powered 7.62x51mm NATO itself turned out to be too powerfull as a true assault rifle cartridge and was only picked because of US conservatism. Thus the concept of battle rifles was born (FAL/M14/G3 etc.). This undermined the whole lightweight-automatic concept and many countries even abandonned selective fire for their battle rifles completely. As a result the world came to regard battle rifles as obsolete. However after a 180 degrees turn made by the US with the introduction of the M16 and the light 5.56 cartridge, desert combat (mainly in Afghanistan) amongst ithers has pointed out the severe deficiencies of a .22 caliber main weapon and a resurgence op full powered cartridges is noticeable.

The US, with their preferenance for extremes, have severely hampered the development of an efficient assault rifle cartridge; had the world listened to the British instead we would've already been happily firing .280 intermediate for about 50 years.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Guest on Thu 1 May 2008 - 16:45

LoC978 wrote:*shrug*
same reason the US military stopped using the 30.06 in favor of the 7.62x51NATO... even though it's weaker, you can find it pretty much anywhere, worldwide.

oh, and for the record: 30.06>8mm mauser Razz

The NATO round is actually an improved .30-'06 and nothing more. The main reason for the US to dismiss the .30-'06 was the length of the cartridge which makes the round less suited to be fed from detachable box magazines.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by LoC978 on Thu 1 May 2008 - 20:36

I know the length of a powder charge isn't everything, but...
and I know energy and velocity aren't everything...
Wikipedia wrote:(for the 30.06):
150 gr (9.7 g) Nosler Ballistic Tip 890 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 3,820 J (2,820 ft·lbf)
165 gr (10.7 g) BTSP 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s) 3,894 J (2,872 ft·lbf)
180 gr (12 g) Nosler partition 880 m/s (2,900 ft/s) 4,495 J (3,315 ft·lbf)
200 gr (13 g) Partition 783 m/s (2,570 ft/s) 3,975 J (2,932 ft·lbf)
220 gr (14 g) RN 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) 4,042 J (2,981 ft·lbf)
...
(for the 8mm mauser):
11.7 g (181 gr) RWS DK 820 m/s (2,700 ft/s) 3,934 J (2,902 ft·lbf)
12.1 g (187 gr) RWS HMK 820 m/s (2,700 ft/s) 4,068 J (3,000 ft·lbf)
12.7 g (196 gr) RWS TMR 800 m/s (2,600 ft/s) 4,064 J (2,997 ft·lbf)
12.8 g (198 gr) RWS ID Classic 800 m/s (2,600 ft/s) 4,096 J (3,021 ft·lbf)
...
(for the 7.62NATO):
146.6 gr (9.50 g) 2,756 ft/s (840 m/s) 2,472 ft·lbf (3,352 J)
(they really need a more complete list of bullets for the NATO...)
but as you can see, at least by these standards... the ought-six is pretty much the most powerful of the three, followed by the mauser, and with the NATO in third.
That being said...
Laionidas wrote:The NATO round is actually an improved .30-'06 and nothing more. The main reason for the US to dismiss the .30-'06 was the length of the cartridge which makes the round less suited to be fed from detachable box magazines.
Improved, yes. It can perform well in anything from an assault rifle to a sniper rifle to a Squad Automatic Weapon. More powerful, though? Quite the opposite, just not by a very great margin. I personally love the 7.62NATO, and would only choose a 30.06 over it in a bolt-action rifle.

I was simply addressing Panzer's question of "Why use a weaker round in a newer weapon?"
Hell, just look at the US Military's reasoning for picking up the 5.56x45NATO. It really does make sense (but that doesn't mean I have to like it Razz ).

Welcome to the forum, by the way. Don't mind my tendancy to debate technical issues... I've just got OCD about stuff like this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Moderatio est figmentum.
avatar
LoC978
Beach Bum Revolutionary

Male

Forum Posts : 2628

Location : Northwestern USA. Usually Portland.

Fan of : At home- Claes. Abroad- Rico.

Registration date : 2007-09-10

Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Guest on Thu 29 May 2008 - 3:18

the biggest difference between the 30-06 and teh 7.62 NATO is that the 06 is rimmed which is fine for bolt or lever actions but not so good for semi and fully automatic weapons. so one of the improvements was to make it rimless for more reliable[and faster] feeding. this also allows for larger capacity clips as a rimless cartridge can be stacked vertically unlike a rimmed cartridge which results in the classic bannana shape(like the AK-47]

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Guest on Thu 29 May 2008 - 5:14

I still prefer the MG42 over the MG03 though...

Welcome to the forum!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by LoC978 on Thu 29 May 2008 - 8:50

orac wrote:the biggest difference between the 30-06 and teh 7.62 NATO is that the 06 is rimmed which is fine for bolt or lever actions but not so good for semi and fully automatic weapons. so one of the improvements was to make it rimless for more reliable[and faster] feeding.
that's actually the main difference between the 7.62x54R and the 7.62x51NATO... the aught-six is no more rimmed than the NATO is...
biggest difference between 'em is the shorter cartridge. the 30.06's brass just has too much area to it, and tends to run into stuff on ejection.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Moderatio est figmentum.
avatar
LoC978
Beach Bum Revolutionary

Male

Forum Posts : 2628

Location : Northwestern USA. Usually Portland.

Fan of : At home- Claes. Abroad- Rico.

Registration date : 2007-09-10

Back to top Go down

Re: MG42 >< MG3?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum