It appears that you are you're enjoying our Military Surplus Collectors Forums, but haven't created an account yet. As an unregistered guest, your are unable to post and are limited to the amount of viewing time you will receive, so why not take a minute to Register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to our forums and knowledge libraries, plus the ability to post your own messages and communicate directly with other members. So, if you'd like to join our community, please CLICK HERE to Register !
Already a member? Login at the top right corner of this page to stop seeing this message.
Good morning:
There really isn't a forum for miscellaneous military rifles, nor is there one for machine guns like Maxims, Lewis, etc, so this has been put in General Discussion. I've had some surgery on my knee, so am at loose ends today, and thought I would take apart my FG42 to clean it. While doing so, I took some photos, which I hope others will enjoy. Being in Canada, and too young to own machine guns, this one is a CA. No, I didn't do the conversion; it was done several years ago. While I'm glad it was done so that I can own this piece, I wish in many ways it hadn't been done as it changes the gun.
The unit is matching, and all original, except the magazine, which is a modern repro stamped "Made in Japan" and while the hold open works, the mag doesn't lock into place. I would love to find an original mag somewhere, or maybe one of those mags for the repro FG42s being brought in might fit.
Typical of later war German weapons, this one is quite modular, and snaps together and apart quite easily. I would think it would have been rather ungainly to shoot, especially with a full magazine hanging off one side, but reportedly, recoil was fairly minimal because of the straight in line design. Like all light autos, I believe they tended to "climb" when on full auto. However, I would think one would only use the full auto function when doing support fire, which would probably be on the ground with bipod mounted anyway. The bayonet is kind of laughable, but no more so than the French MAS.
I have not shot this rifle, and while I would love to, probably never will as if something happened to it, I would feel terrible.
I haven't labelled the photos; the sequence is fairly self-explanatory.
Ed
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
Last edited by boltaction; 05-23-2012 at 07:04 PM.
Very nice. Very comprehensive set of photos. I don't recall this one being done here before. I see a couple of parts they specifically copied for the M60.
YEs, there are a few modern firearms which seem to owe some parts to the FG42. I should really make up a Knowledge Library entry for it I suppose, although some of our members down in the US likely have more "original" examples than I do--mine has had the selector switch removed and that part welded over, so it is not really as it was in 1944 anymore. Still, in all, a rare rifle and really neat to hold. When I look at it, I wonder where it served, who carried it, what happened to him, who it passed to, etc. Was it in action in Normandy against our troops, in Italy against our troops (maybe at Cassino), or ? This history of these pieces is what I love the most.
Great picks can i keep some? I will title them to you. But maybe you don't want that? In school in the 60's they had a rifle that looked like the FG but had the MG42 feed cover on one side. They also had the FG We had a lot of burring in the cam groves in '66/'67 bolt and operating rod. Also the grip retaining clip was a direct copy and we added a special training memo. In the field I had no problems with the grip lock until after Tet in 1968 when replacements had no training. The old crew never had to replace the trigger sear. Clean off and on. The new people could destroy a sear in one range day. It was a direct copy of the FG42 carrier/striker fired system.
Thank you again.
MJ, don't take this personally, but that's crap.
muffett.2008
M60MG copy, yes a of this rifle. The the US Army got it wrong. Should have simply copied and fielded the MG42 in 7.62mm. But instead the US Army fielded a poor MG that was expensive and prone to quick wear. Oh, well.
I had a lot of gauling at the bolt and op-rod lug cam slot and the lug it self. Most of the guns would be cleand off all grease because of the red dust collecting there by the troops so the guns were run dry on the roads. Even static guns on parimiter duty that had grease showed gauling. Every few thousand rounds I would have to stone these areas. I have neve seen the problem on pictures of the FG42 parts. Looking back I think there must have been aproduction problem inheat treating or material selection from the start. By mid '68 I was able to rotate half my M60's to the next level of repair shops that had opened in Pleiku for an upgrade. The came back with white bolts and we received a new lube you could squirt into a hot gun when it started to slow down.
I have some ZB-26 magazines that work in the new semi only USA made FG42 copies. What do you use in Canada for magazines?
Cheers
..MJ..
Last edited by MJ1; 05-24-2012 at 03:33 PM.
MJ, don't take this personally, but that's crap.
muffett.2008
Which factory made them? Looks like a real tough rifle to produce in quantity. I realize not many made, but where did they end up after the war? Very seldom seen today. Very nice photo spread. Thank you.
, and too young to own machine guns, this one is a CA. No, I didn't do the conversion; it was done several years ago. While I'm glad it was done so that I can own this piece, I wish in many ways it hadn't been done as it changes the gun.
PM
