Exactly goring rlly came to the gun manufacturers and was like hey so I need a heavy sub machine gun with the range and accuracy of a standard bolt action rifle and it also needs to be lightweight enough for paratroopers.they must have looked at him like he was on meth prolly cuz he was but yk

@@johnnymcneil1574 maybe he also added "and I don't care how much it costs" (again because he was drugged up and had been stealing expensive things from all across Europe and only needed them for essentially his special forces and not to equip the whole Wehrmacht )

The only minor problem being that the specifications were silly. Oh, wait, that reminds me, there was another time when German weapon designers managed to successfully design a gun that met silly specifications -- original CETME development chambered in the 7.92x41mm CETME Cartridge. See: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ralzppRq2M2qfKs.html

It's also fascinating how many attempts were made to copy and improve it that ended up making it worse.

@@AshleyPomeroy The problem with the FG42 was that it exceeds in cool. But as a military weapon it's pretty much crap. Too expensive, too fragile and just the wrong idea. The MP43/STG44 broke new ground in what kind of weapon the infantry should be carrying, the FG42, not really.

Cue the "hold it down, it's a machine gun!" video.

That single-shot shooting was part of Bundeswehr’s training on the MG 3, even for conscripts.

​@@BorisZechwhich is even more impressive than doing it with an M60.

@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 It was not funny. ;-)

The pig is easy to squeeze one shot at a time

Bane?

It seems like a huge crapshoot, I get nervous just thinking of it. So many 'paths' to choose, doctrines, different calibers, so much but at the same time so little info to go on.

The most fun part would have been focusing on design and experimentation without having to worry about the ATF mamluks kicking in the doors of your workshop.

Gunsmiths at the time must have been big guys

The early CETME rifle prototypes did that, too.

That was one of the requirements, to fire semi in closed bolt and fire full auto in open bolt.

They are little known and also, AFAIK, mostly exist as prototypes so it's incredibly hard to get a hold on one. It's essentially like owning original Pancor Jackhammer prototype.

Brandon Herrera made video about him

It was like we started off with the FG42 to get the tactical equivalent of the MG42. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Well I was a M60 gunner in 89-92 on A.D. as 11B during my time with M60 3 different ones in 3 different units. I found it to be a reliable piece of equipment, yes it does have a few areas that could be better and was with updates M60e3. I personally didn't have any problems with them as long as someone who didn't know squat left "my gun" alone. I had more than one unit armor screw with it and install piston backwards then lace it up or to install lacing wire backwards so plug end would loosen up when fired. I actually got so much practice re doing it with a Leatherman and lacing wire that I would have to do most of the units M60s .

@DB-yj3qc When I was in (Which was 3 years ago) we had the M240 for the M1a2. Great machine gun, but they had to be ran DRIPPING WET. Reason being is everything was so dusty on the Tanks. Makes you wonder if the Military would have made an effort to get the quirks out of the M60 from Day one, we would of had it instead of the M240.

whats with all these weird ass comments in every new video

Have you ever actually disassembled an M14? I own 3, It is most definitely not a long-stroke gas piston system. It has a tappet, just like an M1 Carbine. You might be thinking of the Garand.

Do you have a link to these studies? They sound interesting.

Interesting that the Kalashnikov was also a long stroke gas with rotating bolt, but dropped the bullpup aspect.

I think @geodkyt is correct. If you lookup videos on M14 cycle of operations, the illustrated gas system looks VERY similar to what Ian is describing. My thoughts immediately went to the M14 when Ian started describing the expansion chamber/self regulating system.

@@Tallus_ap_Mordren I think he's referring to the self-regulating expansion chamber aspect of the operation rather than long vs short stroke

Yes, that had me raise an eyebrow too.

Yeah, but good trigger discipline would interfere with his pipe smoking.

It looks like Montgomery with the gun. Patton is probably just out of frame on the right. And it’s at 1:56

Weird, looks like the video got edited and some stuff moved around. it was at 03:17@@jeremypnet

Yes, only it's the M60E6 we bought. I just hope we learned from the US mistakes post-Vietnam, and will know when to replace these MGs, instead of keeping them in service long after they were worn out. A US Army gunsmith/armourer put it this way: "think tissues, not handkerchiefs."

@@petervandyk7173ah ok, sorry messed up that it had been replaced/upgraded

@King.Leonidas yes. The MG/62 (Danish MG3) are too worn, too heavy, too hungry, too long to work as infantry guns. Especially our experiences in Afghanistan made it very clear we needed a new infantry MG. And all the field tests were very clearly in favour of the M60E6. And it looks like US Ord has fixed most or all of the problems with the old Hog. Remember: the M60 was a popular MG in Vietnam, most of the bad reputation came when worn out guns were kept in service throughout the late 70ies and even 80ies.

@King.Leonidas but the MG/62s are still in service as vehicle MGs, so the frrrrrrt from 1000-1200 rpms can still be heard for years to come 😁

Same can be said for all the me 262 and komet recourses that were put into those jets. Yeah awesome but here comes a whole fleet of mustangs at the ready being shipped as fast as they can make them. Same thing goes for the tanks Sherman’s we’re not some big advanced tank but it did what it had to do and did it good enough in mass production

How about the continuing lack of petroleum in aircraft?

They are not that complicated. Thats why allies kept developing them after the war

Aktually it’s a magazine 🤓

@@Meyer-gp7nq Whatever potato pataha

Star Wars has been the legacy of WWII tech with ball turrets on top the list and still popular today.

... Any idea why 🤔?. I have heard alot of photos where not kept/lost,got rid off etc 😔

@@DJJAW11 I think it was just that rare of a weapon and with around 7000 made it could be that the big money collectors over the years got to cherry pick photo collections before they were sold off to everyone else. I don't even recall seeing an FG42 in press photos or postcards. An original private FG42 photo would easily bring $500 or more dollars. I've sold zf41 and 98b sniper rifle photos for $300 over the years, STG44 for good money as well. Maybe one day I'll finally stumble across an FG42 photo...

​@@madpackripsfascinating. I have a book ... Fallschirmjager Thomas McGuirl and Uwe Feist Published by Ryton Publications, 1993!. I got it years ago with my dad at a military show,here in the UK.

Probably because the Krauts could never build enough of literally anything to adequately supply their troops and barely built like 8,000 FGs or whatever. That's not too far off the amount of Federovs that were built and those are hens teeth.

Considering how German propaganda machine loved showing off their technical prowess it's surprising there's not many pictures or film of the FG42 in action.

Yes! I've seen the 6×47 cartridges and even surplus bullets, but never found what was supposed to shoot it!

Stoner 63

because BAR inventor had briefly worked for FN, influencing some FN designers.

@@khairulhelmihashim2510 Briefly? (To be clear, Browning started working with FN in 1897 and was still working with them in 1926, nearly thirty years later, when he died and his legacy was to some extent taken over by his disciple, Dieudonné Saive -- aka "Gift of God Saive").

You do know that the company that made the largest number of different versions of the BAR*, including arguably the best versions was FN?

@@khairulhelmihashim2510 "BAR inventor" is almost an insult to John Moses Browning! He also didn't work briefly with FN, but for almost 30 years until his death.

German cars are terrible in my opinion, I'm an Industrial Mechanic and not an automotive mechanic though. All European cars I've worked on have the same problems as German. The Engineers are too busy wondering if they could, they never stop and wonder if they should. They add a lot of unnecessary or poorly executed features and solutions. As an example, I imagine that an American vehicle would have room to access a particular part and replace it without taking too many things apart, a Japanese vehicle would have a thoughtful access hole to swap that same part, and a European vehicle would require disassembling half of the vehicle to access that part.

@@SpecialEDy yeah did you notice what I said up to 2008 , It seems that after that they just seemed to suck. That is when BMW started putting turbos on their engines and V8s under the hood. They had major problems with their later V engines. They had big problems with chains stretching.

......and oil leaks were horrendous, big money makers though.

All German cars were built badly after the late '90s. To this day they are cruising on reputation alone.

Your evaluation of the VW Rabbit is overstated. The Austin Mini and Austin America were ahead of their time, the Rabbit mearly road the wave. In the US, it pretty well wiped out due to mechanical problems and was withdrawn from the US for a few years before coming back as the Golf, with its problems straightened out.

AFAIK not true, the reduction in the chamber is to cushion the bolt head to reduce bolt bounce, by deforming the cartridge case. It does not make sense to delay movement of the case if there are already flutes to ease its movement.

Fire the G3 and then the STGW-57 and you will understand..The G3 has a very violent recoil impulse compared to the STGW-57..Bolt velocity is also effected by the case ring expansion in the chamber..The delayed blow back roller lock is not a locked breach and extraction occurs before the chamber pressure has completely dissipated, which is why the flutes were necessary in the first place.The ring chamber with the chamber flutes in the STGW 57 is a more refined way of delaying extraction, softening recoil impulse..@@DaletheStgwDude

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j51jjcaYns_Hepc.htmlsi=YnUq0qKMhTpuu9x8&t=937@@DaletheStgwDude

@@hairydogstail The felt recoil of the Stgw. 57 is indeed lower than the G3's, but it is mostly related to the higher weight (1.8kg more), built-in muzzle brake, and a 20% lower bolt mass at equivalent full auto cyclic rate of fire. For that specific feature, I suggest you check SIG patents GB861718A and CH354368A on Google Patents (sadly can't post links here). "The object of the present invention is to minimise the aforesaid disadvantage by arranging for the cartridge chamber to deform a cartridge case therein upon the last part of the forward movement of the closure head or breech block, this deformation taking place against the forward action of the breech block so that a part of the kinetic energy of the latter is used and the impact of the breech block against the confronting end face of the breech is damped and rearward displacement of the cartridge case is either prevented or greatly minimised." Can also send excerpts of SIG trials report 4 501 002 on bolt bounce which clearly states "Durch den Absatz im Patronenlager muss die Hülse gestaucht werden. Dadurch wird der Aufprall des Verschlusskopfes gedämpft."

By the way, I really enjoy your channel..kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gMx8fseFs7eWqpc.html@@DaletheStgwDude

You would get your name all over the papers and the morning TV talk shows. It would give the self-appointed guardians of the public morals an awful lot to rant on about. You know, the usual 'ban this lethal weapon, car, vegetable etc' type headlines, that then results in poorly thought out legislation that solves nothing. 😢

try easy red 2

Well, of course. The BAR was anearly attempt at what would later be considered am LMG, nobody* would ever arm a squad with more than two BARs, but the idea of the STG44 was that everyone got one. (* yes some idiot probably tried).

@@JohnHughesChampignyI can name one idiot who put three BARs in a ten-Marine squad: BGen Carlson. His Raiders squads were armed with 3 or 4 M1 Rifles, 3 BARs and 3 Thompson submachine guns. Adding a fourth Marine to each fire team and replacing the Thompsons with M1 Rifles became the 1944 Marine Corps rifle squad that lasted to the present. Once upon a time the Marine rifle squad had three 40mm grenade launchers plus three belt-fed machine guns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Carlson If my research on the BAR is valid, the prototype BAR fired from a closed bolt and John M. Browning intended the BAR to be an individual select-fire weapon that would be substituted for one or more BARs in the rifle company. At the time (1910) Browning began his prototype, the concept of a crew-served squad automatic weapon didn't exist--the French developed that rifle squad in 1915 and their "machine rifle" team formed half of a radical new rifle squad. The rifle team contained rifle and hand grenades and riflemen. When the US Army got its hands on the BAR, it was used as a crew-served weapon and mandated that it be optimized for full-auto fire; Browning redesigned it to fire from an open bolt and beefed up the weapon to withstand sustained use of the powerful .30 caliber (.30-06 Springfield) cartridge. The FG-42 was designed to do the same thing that John M. Browning designed the BAR for--use as an individual weapon. The BAR existed in prototype form before the concept of the pistol-caliber submachine gun existed, so the BAR was only supposed to replace a service rifle one-for-one, and on a temporary basis. The FG-42 was supposed to replace the submachine gun, light machine gun, and service rifle and be an individual weapon. The MP-44 was also an individual weapon--and for a while the German rifle squad was supposed to be armed ONLY with MP-44-type rifles. The FG-42 was similar in concept to the MP-44 with significantly different execution. Note that the AK-47 was designed to replace the PPSh-41 submachine gun--the SKS was to replace the Mosin-Nagant service rifle and the RPD was the replacement for the DP light machine gun. Eventually the Red Army figured out that their AK-47 could replace every squad weapon. The FG-42 was an interesting weapon but was inferior to the MP-44 as a combat weapon despite having the more powerful cartridge and remaining controllable in full-auto fire. You do have an excellent point--the USA produced 300,000 BARs as crew-served support weapons and Germany produced 400,000 MP-44's as individual baseline weapons issued to every soldier. The FG-42 was a special-purpose arm that was supposed to arm every German paratrooper and gilder-borne infantry soldier. The FG-42 failed on two counts--first, after the Crete operation, parachute operations were a no-no in the German air force (another victory like Crete and we will lose the war!) and the FG-42 was to expensive to issue to every German air force infantry soldier. As a light machine gun, the FG-42 was inferior to most LMGs of the Second World War. As a self-loading rifle, it was too expensive--Germany issued as many semiautomatic and select fire rifles as it could manufacture or steal from the Russians (Polish BARs, while they lasted, were appreciated by the Waffen SS). As a submachine gun it was almost top-notch, except for cost and small magazine capacity--but worked well enough in that role; submachine guns with folding stocks were not universal (see PPSh-41, Thompson, STEN and Beretta submachine guns for reference). Cost and a vanished mission doomed the FG-42.

There is alot of legend attached to the STG44 in media, with movies and video games featuring them a little. Because they were expensive and sought after, and still are. But in ww2 all of those numbers appeared to soldiers only in the last 2 years. There were entire sturmgewehr companies where every soldier had one. Not to mention the postwar production and the small countries that outfitted their army with the combined production and surplus

@@Elatenla milled receiver will always be stronger & last longer than a stamped reciever

Earlier fg looks so much more useful on full auto, I've handled both patterns deactivated unfortunately, the 1st pattern grip to me is much comfier than the 2nd.

That rifle grip don't look comfy...

@@Drownedinblood it certainly was, the second pattern is like a handle of a revolver. Feels too front heavy personally.

I assume you mean the Johnson LMG? Major difference from the FG42 is that the Johnson is recoil operated, not long stroke gas.

and compared to Germany you're living in unregulated gun heaven

Sorry about your dumb laws.

Same here in Singapore....

Throw in a MG-42 and you’d have the exact make up of the current US platoon

Especially if they had made a belt fed variant of the FG-42 chambered in 7.92K

What would be the advantage of replacing the high capacity MG42 by the more fragile 20 round FG42?

@@JohnHughesChampigny The German Army wanted to arm their squads exclusively with StG44 assault rifles. No MG42, no K98 and no Gewehr 43. The MG42 would be kicked up to brigade level. Such orders were issued. I figure the decision had to be made in 1942 and both the MKB42 and FG42 were well enough developed to start medium rate production. I figure the FG42 would allow the squad some ability at long ranges and sniping on the rare occasions it was needed. The G43 wasn’t ready yet.

@@williamzk9083 Well, if their idea was no MG42 I, in my infinite wisdom and massive military experience proclaim them stupid. :)

The buffer reminds me of the G3.

T24 Machine Gun.

thanks @@forcea1454

You could say… a…. Forgotten weapon… ah ha

If a .308 FG-42 were issued to troops, we wouldn’t have been able to afford enough rifles to go to Vietnam in the first place lol (Only slightly exaggerating)

LOl! it would not have cost much, if any more than the M-14, as it utilizes mostly machined parts as well.

@@bertdraing2512 Consider that we had some level of industrial familiarity with those machined parts by virtue of having made nearly 5 and a half million Garands (seeing as the M-14 is basically a Garand with a box mag and a fancy gas block), whereas a derivative of the FG-42 would have been something substantially new to the engineers, draftsmen, and machinists. It’s not un-possible, and presents an interesting “What if?”, but I think anything other than the box magazine fed, select fire Garand we got with the M14 would’ve been too much to ask of the US Military-Industrial Complex of the 1950’s. Consider that a weapon firing an intermediate cartridge and using a small, pressure bearing trunnion came to be the standard infantry rifle concept across the world, and it’s no surprise that the AR-15, borrowing design philosophies from the Stg. 44, became our dominant small arm instead of a FG-42 derivative.

A box to clip on the side to hold a belt? I'm sure they tried it. A box magazine, like the M249 can plug in a standard M16 magazine when you run out of belted ammo? I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but I know of no such attempt for the M60. The early Stoner AR-10s did, and you can find pictures and video of it.

I would believe it has to do with muzzle brakes often creating huge bright fireballs of burning gas and being rather loud, tends to really give away one's position when shooting in low light conditions. That and the US primarily uses 5.56, which really doesnt need a brake at all. If you're shooting in a competition where concealment isnt an issue and you want near zero recoil for the follow up shots then it makes sense, but for regular infantry it would be overkill and possibly detrimental

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hbpljbd5qZOok2Q.html

@@ForgottenWeapons thank you!

Was it? I thought for sure the stg44 or the Thompson had taken that role.

Why: Cause it shreds ppl. How: German Weapon Science Wizardy 😁😁