AHC/WI: NATO-service FG-42
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
marathag
Banned
From looking at the animation
For complexity, it seems the automatic setting is some ways easier: instead of messing with the disconnector, the trigger catches the striker on the first round(as in semi). After the first shot, and when the bolt closes, the free floating striker slamfires on the bolt locking into place, and will continue till the trigger is released, where it holds, or its out of ammo. Not looking like 'true' open bolt operation.
From 1941 onwards the British were making the Cartridge S.A. Ball 6.5mm (Italian).
marathag
Banned
Japanese had that almost done, being it was semi-rimmed and it headspaced on the shoulder and not the rim, like rimless designs
Much lighter - 50% less weight. Also 6 inches shorter, might be important because infantry is transported by trucks, Bren/universal carriers, halftracks, 'Kangaroos', aircraft...
Yes, indeed, improve the design, not make an overhaul.
Increase in production was important in the 1st part of ww2. By mid-war, not so much, British went that far to supply arms wide and far. I don't have the POD that requires British taking losses by FG 42 several times, then capture some, then copy them, but rather the POD where the gun is copied once it was captured and tested.
6.5 Carcano + spitzer for the FG 42 made by Germans from day one.
7.92mm cases don't work with bullets of either smaller or bigger diameter.
marathag
Banned
Eh? that case is the basis for other cartridges
6mm Remington, 257 Roberts, 6.5x57, 7x57, 8x57, 9x57, 9.3x57 and probably some more
I know that. However, the important step of necking-down the throat is omitted in the suggestion:
Of course they could also just chop the 7.92 case down to say 45mm and add a 6.5mm spitzer 120 grain bullet.
Deleted member 1487
Depends on what you mean by overhaul.
The only time they get their hands on late war FG42 that would be worth copying was in the last 10 months of the war, not really enough time to reverse engineer the weapon, tool up for it, and introduce it.
The Germans resisted introducing a new small arms caliber throughout the war, so that is not going to happen, even if it would have been fine weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92×57mm_Mauser#The_7.92×57mm_Mauser_as_parent_case
They even made a 5.6x57!
They did it with a number of prototypes pre-war:
http://www.municion.org/7x46RWS/7x46RWS.htm
http://www.municion.org/7mm/7x54Rws.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 1487
No they weren't, they were using captured Italian cartridges:
https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/6-5mm-7-35mm-8mm-italian
Major change in 'operating system'.
Yes, it would've required capturing it by some time late 1943 - say, the rescue of Benny goes pear-shaped, and several examples fell into Allied hands.
Agreed. Although, they introduced the new cartridge - 7.92 Kurz.
They did it, by also necking the original case. No necking down, no smaller bullet.
Deleted member 1487
Fair enough.
I'd be surprised if they'd want to copy that early model, major upgrades were necessary IOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42#First_operational_use
Not new, chopped down 57mm case with a new bullet and propellant. Produced on the same machines they already had as noted in British reports on the cartridge.
Um....you do realize those were 7mm bullets, right? Necked down, shortened, smaller bullet.
http://www.cartridgecollector.net/7-x-45-polte
http://www.cartridgecollector.net/7-x-46-rws-experimental
Yes, necking down is necessary, but it was not suggested in post #28. Shortening might not be mandatory, yet it was suggested.
Deleted member 1487
Shortening to match the powder load of the case. The Arisaka and Carcano were thinner cases than the 57mm Mauser, which meant having a smaller powder load; using the existing Mauser case, but shortening it means minimal modifications to the weapon, you can still use existing cartridge making machinery, and since the case was used for those caliber historically necking them down isn't a problem even in a shorter case. After all the Swiss shortened their wider case down to 38mm and despite the sharp shoulder to neck were apparently able to get it to work in their version of the FG42:
http://www.municion.org/7_5x38/7_5x38.htm
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/swiss-bern-prototype/
Deleted member 1487
With the caliber discussion, I wonder if the Germans had adopted some of the experimental designs pre-war, like the 7x45mm Polte, that the FG-42 might have turned out to be a more viable general purpose battle rifle or that the Vollmer M35 might have even been more desirable pre-war.
I wonder if even post-war something like the FG42 might not have been perfect for the .280 British cartridge.
I wonder if even post-war something like the FG42 might not have been perfect for the .280 British cartridge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similarity between the 7x45 and .280 British is striking. Both offered good ballistics and terminal effect, coupled with much more manageable recoil than full-power cartridges otherwise used.
Deleted member 1487
I think it would be a lock to mass manufacture the FG-42 in an improved configuration with stamped steel construction had it been made in a smaller caliber/cartridge combo, something like the .276 Pedersen in power, perhaps a bit more. It would have less propellant, so the powder would burn off before leaving the barrel eliminating the fireball (though some sort of a mild flash hider wouldn't hurt on even an 18 inch barrel, while a much smaller muzzle device to control recoil would be needed. Plus the automatic fire feature would be a lot less violent given the short action of the weapon.
The US built hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of M60s so the system is certainly mass producible with some effort.