Jump to content


Photo

MAG58s and MG42s forever?


  • Please log in to reply
718 replies to this topic

#21 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,406 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 20 December 2007 - 2322 PM

Turkish guns can be excellent, as evidenced by their shotguns and some pistols I have come accross but the MKE stuff was shit.

Unadulterated faeces. I don't know about function but I have never seen nastier welds on an HK clone. Even the Iranian stuff was nicer.

Simon
  • 0

#22 pdoktar

pdoktar

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 0338 AM

pdoktar...surely you mean 7.62x54mm forever! The oldest cartridge still in general service. Gotta dig that Semi-rimmed coolness.


Well why reinvent the wheel time and again. The russians had the 7,62x51 NATO already in 1900. Not too powerful, not too weak, just right for what´s it supposed to do (the FAL already existed in 1930s with the tokarev and simonov semiautos.. :P :P :P broadly speaking).

I have no experience of 5,56cal weapons, only 7,62x39 and x54. To me they work just fine (as seem to work for some other people in a shooting war too). I also prefer having a bit heavier caliber for a SAW somehow, even without squad ammo interchangeability.
  • 0

#23 Xavier

Xavier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antwerp, the diamond capital of the world
  • Interests:Lots of serious and not so serious things...

Posted 21 December 2007 - 0951 AM

Well why reinvent the wheel time and again. The russians had the 7,62x51 NATO already in 1900. Not too powerful, not too weak, just right for what´s it supposed to do (the FAL already existed in 1930s with the tokarev and simonov semiautos.. :P :P :P broadly speaking).

I have no experience of 5,56cal weapons, only 7,62x39 and x54. To me they work just fine (as seem to work for some other people in a shooting war too). I also prefer having a bit heavier caliber for a SAW somehow, even without squad ammo interchangeability.

so did a lot of countries until Uncle Sam decided that the NATO round would be a 7,62 mm which brought no improvement whatsoever except a slightly smaller case over most European military rounds instead of the more controllable Anglo-Belgian .280
  • 0

#24 zakk

zakk

    We kill whales for fun. Supporter of evil Juices.

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway

Posted 25 December 2007 - 2026 PM

The Norwegians tried that. After they couldn't get any new guns from Germany (as I said, production ceased already in 1979, that's almost 30 years ago), they went to MKE. They bought more than 4,000 MG3s from them in 1992. All I heard of that deal was negative, they are apparently not very happy with the Turkish product.

So very true. All guns received needed to be sent back to MKE to get new barrels...
  • 0

#25 Lyle, Bob

Lyle, Bob

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 232 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 26 December 2007 - 1551 PM

There is that South African SS77, the PKM in 7.62 NATO.

Judging by the new[url-http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007armaments/LipsitWed.pdf]Project Manager Soldier Weapons
Overview[/url] there isn't really a replacement. It looks like they intend to replace tripod mounted M240s with XM3O7/XM312
and bipod mounted with LSAT LMGs. That might not be so bad, if they scale up to a 6-7mm round.
  • 0

#26 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 December 2007 - 1635 PM

...the PKM in 7.62 NATO...


SGM actualy.
  • 0

#27 CV9030FIN

CV9030FIN

    Former FDF tanker - current FDF PowerpointRanger flying the desk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:back home...
  • Interests:Tactics, technics. prosedures, technology and history related to armored warfare.

Posted 02 January 2008 - 0457 AM

PKM also for forever.... <_<


I do like PKM more than I do MG3. IHMO is mostly due the simplicity and handling of PKM when compared to over heavy and complecated MG3... just my 0.02 AFA's
  • 0

#28 Exel

Exel

    1.PsvK

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,093 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 0919 AM

I do like PKM more than I do MG3. IHMO is mostly due the simplicity and handling of PKM when compared to over heavy and complecated MG3... just my 0.02 AFA's


I certainly wouldn't want to use MG3 on foot. It's decent for a mounted MG but I can only feel sorry for anyone who has to use it as an infantry MG.
  • 0

#29 dobrodan

dobrodan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2008 - 1027 AM

I certainly wouldn't want to use MG3 on foot. It's decent for a mounted MG but I can only feel sorry for anyone who has to use it as an infantry MG.


I will have to agree on that...

My only experience with the PKM left me stunned because of the lightness and build-quality compared to the MG3... It handled almost like a G3 w/ UGL
  • 0

#30 Sailor Lars

Sailor Lars

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Life in general and my biceps.

Posted 02 January 2008 - 1655 PM

pump up some more muscle, you rice-sticks! ;)
  • 0

#31 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 02 January 2008 - 2030 PM

The MG3... separating men from the boys.
  • 0

#32 EvanDP

EvanDP

    Deus Ex Nukina

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Interests:SciFi, firearms, Military history, computers, redheads

Posted 02 January 2008 - 2242 PM

pump up some more muscle, you rice-sticks! ;)

HEY!! I resemble that remark. :lol:
  • 0

#33 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 02 January 2008 - 2307 PM

Luckily we have up to 8 SAWs in a platoon.

The platoon MG team might just die from tiredness lugging the FN MAG around.
  • 0

#34 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 03 January 2008 - 0635 AM

pump up some more muscle, you rice-sticks! ;)


That kinda reminds me of spell as reservist in 1993. Obviously, powers to be thought that I'd be good to give me some refreshment training in wartime outfit. Ended up with unit of me, NCO and 2 privates as TOE... Our weaponry was impressive, tho. It consisted of personal RKs(assault rifles) and assorted shite (of course), but to that we were given half-dozen LAWs (66mm kind), 3 carry boxes of AT mines (a 10 kg per mine..several mines in one) and LMG/SAW (KvKK 62). I was quite impressed with allocation of firepower... I guess we were designed to imitate Custer's Last Stand among the HQ we belonged to if shit hit the fan... But good part is, when you belong to REMF outfit, there is always vehicles to carry the stuff :D.

Edited by Sardaukar, 03 January 2008 - 0708 AM.

  • 0

#35 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 03 January 2008 - 1128 AM

That kinda reminds me of spell as reservist in 1993. Obviously, powers to be thought that I'd be good to give me some refreshment training in wartime outfit. Ended up with unit of me, NCO and 2 privates as TOE... Our weaponry was impressive, tho. It consisted of personal RKs(assault rifles) and assorted shite (of course), but to that we were given half-dozen LAWs (66mm kind), 3 carry boxes of AT mines (a 10 kg per mine..several mines in one) and LMG/SAW (KvKK 62). I was quite impressed with allocation of firepower... I guess we were designed to imitate Custer's Last Stand among the HQ we belonged to if shit hit the fan... But good part is, when you belong to REMF outfit, there is always vehicles to carry the stuff :D.


Well, our 4-man squads had 1 BILL-system with 6 missiles and thermal sight,
1 CG ATR, an FN-MAG, 4 AT-4's and...10 AT-mines if I remember it correctly.
Thats about 80-85kg of weapons and munition per man,
AR's with munitions and hand grenades not included.

On a more serious note, as much as love the FN-MAG I think it's to heavy for a squad weapon.
A squad MG should be light enough, for the gunner to be able to fire it from the shoulder
while standing or in the prone.
As it was, while advancing our MG-gunners fired the thing from the hip, barely being abble to hit the ground
(well sooner or later the bullets will hit the ground, but not necessarely in the right grid-square)
  • 0

#36 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 03 January 2008 - 1953 PM

On a more serious note, as much as love the FN-MAG I think it's to heavy for a squad weapon.
A squad MG should be light enough, for the gunner to be able to fire it from the shoulder
while standing or in the prone.

But why would you want your MG gunners to advance while shooting?
Wouldn't it be a bit smarter to keep them in the fire team, while the other half advances. Once the new position is secured, pull up the MG. I mean, it usually is the most important gun that the squad leader has, so if there is some fighting going on the MG should not necessarily being the weapon on the move.

Of course, I acknowledge that there can be occasions where you are being surprised, so you have to improvise. And Yes, weight reduction is always desirable, let there be no doubt. But should those two points, one rather special, the other rather unspecific, be the supreme guidelines for the selection of the proper M/GPMG? If the MAG and MG3 suck so badly, why are they still in service (all conspiracy theories aside)?
  • 0

#37 kotay

kotay

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 0035 AM

But why would you want your MG gunners to advance while shooting?
Wouldn't it be a bit smarter to keep them in the fire team, while the other half advances. Once the new position is secured, pull up the MG. I mean, it usually is the most important gun that the squad leader has, so if there is some fighting going on the MG should not necessarily being the weapon on the move.


But what if you're always fighting in closed terrain, jungles or urban? In such terrain, it doesn't take much for the fight to advance past the coverage of a fire base/team.

In such situations, perhaps there is utility in a light weight SAW that can be reloaded and fired on the move as the "fire team" struggles to keep in contact.


Of course, I acknowledge that there can be occasions where you are being surprised, so you have to improvise. And Yes, weight reduction is always desirable, let there be no doubt. But should those two points, one rather special, the other rather unspecific, be the supreme guidelines for the selection of the proper M/GPMG? If the MAG and MG3 suck so badly, why are they still in service (all conspiracy theories aside)?


Are we confusing the role of a section MG (or SAW) as compared to a platoon MG.

Myself, being light of build, I'd hate to lug a M3 around in the role of SAW, struggling to keep up with a section. I'd definately prefer something lighter here, even if I understand that I'd be giving something up in terms of firepower. OTOH, I can appreciate a M3 as a platoon MG, with a 3-4 man team and less demands to be mobile.
  • 0

#38 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 04 January 2008 - 0059 AM

But why would you want your MG gunners to advance while shooting?


Usually in urban or jungle terrain in the assault role, MG teams have to move a lot as there is seldom one great vantage point for you to stay put. And you have to move to different positions to cover different areas as the platoon moves.

Unless you just position the MG somewhere else to cover your own withdrawal or cut off enemy reinforcement/withdrawal. Or completely leave it behind.

I saw a SEAL video and the operator was able use a M60A4 as a SAW firing off great volume on the move in high kneeling position. But for most people, that weapon still too heavy.
  • 0

#39 Ariete!

Ariete!

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,034 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 0842 AM

Well, CLEARLY a medium MG is afire-support weapon, not an assault weapon. It arguably belongs to the platoon/half-platoon’s fire support sub-unit with the assault infantry advancing under its overwatch.

In terms of very close terrain which ash been mentioned, (Jungle, etc.)…once you are close enough that your MG cannot see you, then you are not crossing the sort of open ground/interval that requires the fire support in the first place. At that point, your squad/team-level LMGs take over, surely?

Anyone have any experience with the South African MMG (l77 or something like that??). How does it compare to MAG 58 / MG3??




And what about LMGs?? Is it going to be ‘MiniMI forever’?
  • 0

#40 kotay

kotay

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 1123 AM

Well, CLEARLY a medium MG is afire-support weapon, not an assault weapon. It arguably belongs to the platoon/half-platoon’s fire support sub-unit with the assault infantry advancing under its overwatch.


No arguments there.


In terms of very close terrain which ash been mentioned, (Jungle, etc.)…once you are close enough that your MG cannot see you, then you are not crossing the sort of open ground/interval that requires the fire support in the first place. At that point, your squad/team-level LMGs take over, surely?

Hence my distinction between SAWs/LMGs and GPMG/MMG. I may be the only getting confused, but in the last page, it seemed that the discussion was gradually moving to LMGs and weight ... and 98 pound weaklings.

I know that there are some armies out there using MAG-58 in a SAW/LMG role. To me, that is just mind boggling ...


And what about LMGs?? Is it going to be ‘MiniMI forever’?


Noooooo ... it is time for the decidely un-sexy Ultimax 100 to step to the fore ;)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users