jbaum wrote:Might I suggest that it mounts the same way the other optics mounts do..... on the Lafette and not on the gun. When you're shooting 25 shots a second, trying to look through optics mounted on the gun itself is a little difficult. Yup, they use the iron sights, or pull the trigger and adjust the gun by watching where the bullets hit. They're not shooting an MG3 because they can hit something at 500 yards on the first shot. You don't drive a semi because it's easy to park, and an MG3 is not to be confused for a target rifle.
setlab wrote:True, but I find it a little hard to believe today's German army is that far behind the learning curve and relies 100% on irons. Optics are a force multiplier, it almost sounds stupid to me why they wouldn't have something mounted. Even at 25rnds a sec, speaking of that don't they use the heavier bolt now days, to slow that rate of fire down?
jbaum wrote:setlab wrote:True, but I find it a little hard to believe today's German army is that far behind the learning curve and relies 100% on irons. Optics are a force multiplier, it almost sounds stupid to me why they wouldn't have something mounted. Even at 25rnds a sec, speaking of that don't they use the heavier bolt now days, to slow that rate of fire down?
At 25 shots a second, you don't need something mounted. The gun is too heavy to fire from the shoulder, so putting a scope on it is ridiculous since you can't look through it when you're carrying it anyway. If it's going to be fired at greater distances or from a stationay position, it's set up on a Bipod or Lafette. The gun shakes too much when firing to be practical to mount the scope to it, so firing from the Bipod, the scope would be useless anyway. On the Lafette, the scope is useful, and it has the scope mounted on it. They are wise not to put bells and whistles on it that would only get in the way. I have yet to see a scope on a Mini-gun....
"behind the learning curve" ???? thats a litte harsh on the people who invented a gun that is so exceptional it's still in use and being manufactured virtually unchanged after 65 years. There isn't a modern military rifle still being used in any army after 65 years except for the MG42. The AK47 isn't even that old. This tells me that for it's purpose, it is at the top of the food chain. I think their learning curve is peaked at the top, and they're smart enough to stay there.
The heavy bolt is a development of the Austrians. Most people who have tried the heavy bolt take it out after they see it beating the gun to death just to save on ammo. If you're in the army, replacement guns and maintenance aren't that big a deal. But at $40,000 each for a transferrable, longevity is very important and the heavy bolt just isn't conducive to a long service life.
Accuracy is good in the MG42, but that's not the purpose of having a gun with that rate of fire.
According to the original manuals, when used for assaults the MG42 was to be shot in 3 to 5 round bursts at close targets. If you can put out 5 shots in 1/5 of a second without having to shoulder the weapon to aim, you're likely to eliminate the target faster than he can shoulder his weapon, aim, and fire once to eliminate you.
The gun is designed for its purpose. Restating the purpose then saying the gun is ineffective isn't a making a valid point. Scopes aren't on a lot of guns, from the Mod. 92 Beretta to the Mini-gun. You don't need a brass catcher on a single shot rifle, and you don't need a scope mount on an MG42.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests