Ramontxo
Donor
You can download the manual for the MG here:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/medium-machine-guns/swedish-kulspruta-m36/
Haven't read it, but if it's not there, I dont know were else you will find it...
Thank you
You can download the manual for the MG here:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/medium-machine-guns/swedish-kulspruta-m36/
Haven't read it, but if it's not there, I dont know were else you will find it...
It as certainly more powerful than the .270 British, but nearly comparable to the more powerful versions of the .280 British. Depending on what load for the 6.5 Swedish was used it was either about as powerful or significantly less powerful. Overall it was roughly in the same realm as the .280 British and 6.5 Swede. The .270 British was significantly less powerful, but easier to control for an infantry hand weapon on automatic. With a decent muzzle brake though, like the FG42, it could have been ideal in a 1950s style battle rifle provided it had a more aerodynamic bullet. Arguably it was pretty ideal for a LMG and maybe even a SAW, certainly a DMR, but it was probably underpowered for a MMG. IIRC the issue with it, besides the range in a open field of fire, was it's relative lack of penetration of cover in the jungle fighting in the Pacific vs. the US .30-06.Excuse the necromancy, but there's one question I had been meaning to ask.
I noticed that 6mm-6.5mm calibers seem to perform quite well. The Imperial Japanese Army used 6.5 x 50 mm Arisaka in the Type 38 rifle and several MGs. From some cursory searching (and I'm no expert on small arms), it seemed to be regarded as a decent rifle round but lacked the energy to be a satisfactory MG round.
How did it stack up compared to, say, .270/.280 British/6.5 mm Swede?
If they found a way to mass produce it too the US Army might have had a battle rifle-gasm and might have realized the hope of replacing the BAR in actual practice and create a viable battle rifle.Love that video. And if anything could have got the us army past the whole "we only want .30 cal ammo" I do think a 6.5 mm fg42 could have been it
IIf they found a way to mass produce it too the US Army might have had a battle rifle-gasm and might have realized the hope of replacing the BAR in actual practice and create a viable battle rifle.
Not even, they had a stamped steel version in the works. If they also converted it to roller delayed blow back....I wanted to say that it’s to expensive to build but the truth is you just need a then modern Kahn like factory with sufficient single use machine tools (to allow for the use of relatively unskilled workers) and spam them out by the tens of thousands. Jobs a good un.
They could have purchased, probably for a nickel apiece, surplus U.S. M-1 and had a semi auto that would hit with lethal enegry out to a couple thousand yards.Early adoption .... say 1950 ...... would have been better for Canadian soldiers fighting in Korea.
OTL They were equipped with bolt-action, WW2-vintage rifles, but really, really, really needed more automatic weapons to stop Chinese human-wave tactics.
Come to think of it, knowing the US style they probably would do a Kahn factory and mill out the weapons like the expensive lighter alloy first version of the FG42 (with V2 handgrip and bipod placement):I
I
wanted to say that it’s to expensive to build but the truth is you just need a then modern Kahn like factory with sufficient single use machine tools (to allow for the use of relatively unskilled workers) and spam them out by the tens of thousands. Jobs a good un.
i'm going to disagree with you on that,One last thing. One way to prevent the 7.62 NATO being adopted, which is outside the scope of the OP, is for the .276 Pedersen to have been adopted pre-WW2. As it would have the performance already to match or exceed the 7.62 NATO round there is no point in the wider bullet making a comeback.
In LMG/MMG roles? Sure it is. HMGs were already .50 cal. The 7mm Pedersen round maintained energy and accuracy better than the 7.62 NATO due to the bullet designs and sectional density. The 7.62 NATO round was designed to sort of match the performance of the M2 Ball .30-06 in a shorter case, which was worse than the .276 Pedersen round at longer ranges. In fact where the .276 already bested the .30-06, the 7.62 was actually even lower powered.i'm going to disagree with you on that,
.276 Pedersen isn't able to replace 30.06 in belt fed guns, and switching the mmg's/gpmg's over to 7.62 after the war makes sense, it would also be possible if something like 7mm-08 was adopted post war for that role
this does make the post war adoption of something like .270 Brit for rifles far more likely
I don't think the Italians had any to spare before they dropped out of the war; they got caught trying to caliber convert right before the war and then had to switch back to 6.5. The thing is that the Germans overran a bunch of nations that used 6.5mm rounds, so it shouldn't have been that hard to adopt one of them for the FG42, but I guess the Luftwaffe was highly concerned about ammo compatibility for their paratroopers, so didn't want a different caliber or even specially modified 7.92mm cartridge potentially disrupting resupply.I'm not sure whether it was suggested before, but how about this: Germans make the FG-42 in 6.5mm Italian? Should've been more controlable in automatic fire, and it is early enough in the war so it can be studied and, hopefully, copied by the Allies. Using the relatively available cartridge will ease the job both for Germans and the Allies, later making the copies in thousands before the VE day. Small change vs. Italian cartridge being introduction of the spitzer round.
lS - leichtes Spitzgeschoss - anti-aircraft
- missile weight - 5,5 g
- muzzle velocity - 925 m/s
Come to think of it, knowing the US style they probably would do a Kahn factory and mill out the weapons like the expensive lighter alloy first version of the FG42 (with V2 handgrip and bipod placement):
————————————————————————
They had good reason the make many changes on the second model of FG42. For example, the wooden buttstock prevents your face from freezing to your gun during Russian winters. FG42-2 switched to pressed steel to simplify production and avoid using scarce steel alloys.
I have fired a modern, German-made replica of a First Model FG42 and loved it! It recoils less than an FN FAL and is lighter to carry.
Recoil is so light that if a NATO nation adopted an updated FG42-2, they would not bother with 5.56mm ammo.
Master Corporal Rob Warner, CD + graduate of Bundeswehr Luftlande Lufttransport Schule
Extremely cool. Was it in full auto? Do you think the reason it was so light recoiling was the muzzle brake?They had good reason the make many changes on the second model of FG42. For example, the wooden buttstock prevents your face from freezing to your gun during Russian winters. FG42-2 switched to pressed steel to simplify production and avoid using scarce steel alloys.
I have fired a modern, German-made replica of a First Model FG42 and loved it! It recoils less than an FN FAL and is lighter to carry.
Recoil is so light that if a NATO nation adopted an updated FG42-2, they would not bother with 5.56mm ammo.
Master Corporal Rob Warner, CD + graduate of Bundeswehr Luftlande Lufttransport Schule
It was absolutely viable technically speaking and was in fact tested by the US against the various other light rifles of the day (FN FAL, M14 prototype, and EM-2 prototype) and supposedly proved superior. Politics was the primary issue there AFAIK.What's about that Spanish really long bullet CETME developed that was on Forgotten Weapons. Excluding the political issues with it.