Fallschirmjägergewehr 42

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Has anyone mentioned the Johnson LMG that the Special Service Force used? Selective fire, side loading rifle caliber ammo, bipod, light.

Overall about the same as the FG42. Didn't make it into general usage either.

Marines used it and the semi-auto rifle version as well, but preferred the Garand, and replaced them ASAP. I heard stories (true?) that Marines stole M1s from Army troops in the Pacific to get rid of their Jonhsons before M1s were issued to the Marines in enough numbers.

Also, early versions of the BAR were selective fire.

FG 42 wasn't really anything new. Sorry.

Oh, and the LMG version also came with a pistol grip.

Intersting article from Johnson LMG website "There is some evidence that Melvin Johnson may have taken note of the human engineering aspects of the German Solothurn MG34 and configured his LMG accordingly. In his 1941 book Automatic Arms, he includes a number of references to the MG 34 with emphasis on its short recoil operation, air cooling, straight line positioning of all recoiling parts and buttstock, plus the sights being set high to minimize the adverse affects of recoil-induced vibration. It is probably no accident that the Johnson M1941 came out looking like it does."

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Snow Leopard:

Did you know that FG 42 turn out valueable tool as article showed: "Descendants of the FG-42

Numerous features, including the in-line design, the pistol grip, and the gas-operated bolt selection process were studied extensively by Army engineers after the war. Ultimately, this resulted in weapons such as the American M60 machine gun. Numerous other examples exist, all attesting to the engineering genius of German arms manufacturers."

I thought the M60 was based on the MG42...

[scharfschutze]

Hi Snow Leopard,

Thanks for posting those links! I found them interesting and informative.

best regards,

scharfschutze

[Charlie Rock]

Emar--

Sorry if I was rude on my reply. Did not intend to come across as a flamer. My apologies for that.

As for the rest of this thread:

The bolt and operating rod assembly for the M-60 was copied directly from the FG42. If you look at field stripped models of both they look the same. Placing the buttstock in line with the bolt reduces climb--it was not a characteristic of the M1 or BAR, but was a characteristic of the FG42, MG42, MG34, STG 44. And all current US weapons. It is a good idea.

No, all weapons are not flawed. All weapons have short comings, strengths, and weaknesses. If a weapon like the BAR is heavy, that is not a flaw. If a weapon has shortcomings so severe it prevents it from serving as it was designed to, then it has a flaw. The M16 in 1965 jammed so much it could be characterized this way. The M1 rifle had an odd magazine concept but that did not prevent it from doing what it was built for. The MG-34 was finely tuned and tough to maintain and keep clean but these facts did not keep it from performing as designed.

If you design a weapon that is supposed to be selective fire but the bullet selection and weapon size are such a severe combination that auto fire is impractical, then it is not selective fire and you spent a lot of effort toward something that it cant do. You could argue this was true of the M14, if you like. In the case of the FG42, a semiauto rifle existed as an alternative--the GW41/43. Since at the end of the day this did little more then that then it was an odd choice in a firearm.

The German industry produced a lot of creative ideas that helped the post war US R&D community--didnt help the Germans win the war. A lot of last minute creative producing wonder weapons in small lots-STGs, V2s, Type XXI subs, ME262s, etc. The johnson was actually a pretty good weapon-was it so good that retooilng the factories to build the Johnson offset the 3-4 months the factories were down? To wit, are 40000 Johnsons in 1942 better then 70000 M1s and BARs? These are the sorts of questions you ask when running a war. The GW41/43 was a more or less copy of the Garand. At some point someone- don't know who - said let's bite the bullet and copy the M1 the Americans use and dump the Kar98k. SO it was not so much the Germans decided not to use a semiauto rifle, they more accurately decided not to, then changed their minds. Since the M1 was built in 1936 it would have done the Germans well to have thought of this in 1940, say. That would not have seen a really inspire choice but was afar-reaching one. A squad with 9 M1 equivalents, an MP40, and an MG34 would have been quite the uber landser squad in 1941. While the STG44 was a creative leap that few designers made, the GW41/43 was a derivative copy, albeit a solid one-of the M1- it seems odd to me to field a 1200 rpm squad LMG and complain about ammo expenditure by riflemen. The basic load for an American rifleman vice a German probably were pretty close--I think about 80 rounds.

That is true of many armies and many weapons. Cant focus on everything as a priority. The Panther, for example, came off the drawing board relatively quickly.

Sharfschutze--thanks for the charming story. I have been to Iraq and will go back in a few months. You're not even remotely funny.

[Lucho]

I think that the GW41/43 were developed as an answer to the russian SVT38/40.

[scharfschutze]

Charlie Rock,

Looks like we still don't see eye to eye, probably never will - that's OK, happens all the time, I guess. But, we can agree to disagree. Meanwhile, I'm burying the hatchet, and pouring two drinks. Good luck to you.

best regards,

scharfschutze

[Bone_Vulture]

Could someone fish for the production charts of the Kar98 models in Germany? I wager the were in producion well before the war...

[Charlie Rock]

"The German army entered WW II with a total number of 2,769,534 Kar 98k. Another 7,540,059 were delivered to the army 925,984 were delivered to the Luftwaffe, 191,250 to the navy and 62,600 to the SS (the SS received another 235,000 rifles, mainly Mauser-types, from their own production)

G 41: 122,907 were made well into 1944

7,000 FG 42 of all variants

MP 43 and MP 44 / Sturmgewehr was 425,977

MP 38 and MP 40 combined was 908,317."

[Bone_Vulture]

Wow, I never knew the production numbers for the assault rifle variants were that high, especially in comparison to those of the MP38/40 SMG.

The numbers clearly show that the total production of the Kar98 rifles was... Over TEN MILLION?! Anyone should know that maintaining a steady supply of utilities and spare parts for such hugely produced weapon was not an easy task, and even the slightest change in the design could increase the expenses by draconian amounts.

Only one key detail is missing: when was the Kar98 chosen to be the common firearm of every soldat?

[flamingknives]

Just as a slightly off-topic note of interest, when the British Army deployed to the Suez in 1956, they took the venerable No. 4 Lee-Enfield rifle with them in place of the new L1 Rifle (FN-FAL, with a few modifications) as there was a fear that the semi-automatic mechanism would fare poorly in the desert sand.

[Emar]

No worries Charlie. Just a friendly discussion.

Agree about your last post including the early M16 debacle, but unlike the other guns I think this one deserves somewhat unique status as this gun worked fine in testing and early use and had no real problems until it saw service in greater numbers .

If memory serves the problems that plagued the guns service in Nam were not so much a design flaw as they were a combination of the Army's decision to change the ammunition propellent without notifying the manufacturer and the spreading of a false rumor that the new "Mattel" gun did not need to be cleaned.

Believe the gun was originally tested with a commercial powder (called IMR?), which burned clean, and then replaced as the demand for more ammo went up with a cheaper and more readily avilable propellent called ball powder or something like that which produced a sticky residue.

After correcting these non design problems and adding the forward assist just to make sure, the gun worked fine.

[Charlie Rock]

I think the original powder was the one that worked fine, and the IMR was the bad stuff.

I surfed around and found a site that claimed there was a third version of the FG42 which would have been heavier and held up to the recoil better. I guess if only 7,000 were made of the first two variants then it might be safer to say the weapon was analogous to the P51, pre Rolls Royce engine or the Panther A with the kinks in the fuel lines. If it had reached STG44 numbers it might have ended up radically different looking. The war ended before the bugs came out. As was it tapped out at about 10-11 lbs. Which would explain that it shot semiautomatic OK, like a KAR98k or garand, but would have kicked all over the place vice a bren or BAR, which weighed twice as much to shoot the same round, moreor less.

The later version of the M16 had a chromed chamber that helped, also. I think that the initial bullet spun very, very fast and was devastating when it tumbled. There was some absurd ruling that it was unstable at arctic like temps, so they changed the powder. I could be off.

There is one design issue with the M16, though. Just about every gas operated weapon in the world (Garands, carbies, brens, FG42, BARS, M14s, STG44s, AKs, FNs, M60s , M240s, etc.) use what is called an operating rod. The gas from the bullet goes through a small hole near the end of the barrel, and pushes backward on the end of a rod. The rod is connected to the bolt and pulls the bolt backwards.

For some peculiar reason M16s don't have operating rods. I don't know why.

The gas goes back down a tube and pushes against a large piece of metal called the bolt carrier that wraps around the bolt. The problem is when the gas cools the powder collects in the chamber and all over the bolt and firing pin and parts rather then the tip of the rod. IIRC the jams with the early M16 required soldiers to carry cleaning rods taped to the side of the weapon. Which means the crud and powder probably caused the cartridge case to stick in the chamber. But I think you're right, it was the powder that did it, for the most part.

There is talk that this new M8 rifle, built by H&K, will have an operating rod. That would be better.

[flamingknives]

Hmm. the XM-8, as it is now, is essentially a re-casing of the G36 mechanism, IIRC, and that rifle is renowned for reliability.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

The later version of the M16 had a chromed chamber that helped, also. I think that the initial bullet spun very, very fast and was devastating when it tumbled. There was some absurd ruling that it was unstable at arctic like temps, so they changed the powder. I could be off.

You got it the other way around I believe. The M16s up to A1 had rifling with 1 turn in 12" to impart spin to the M193. With the A2 that was tightened to 1 in 7" for the M855 (SS109). The spin on the M193 was (so I've read) marginal. It didn't tumble in flight (accuracy would have gone to hell), but it could do wierd and funky stuff on the recieving end (or just as likely sail right on through neatly).