Bren compared to its contemporaries

[MGMike]

Peter: I can't speak to the "trials" guns or what is written in the reports. But I have owned a ZB26 for 30 years, and it's in front of me right now. I have also examined, hands-on, dozens of ZB26s and ZB30s. Trust me, the barrel and locking nut have angled THREADS that pull the barrel shoulder against the receiver face when the lever is closed and latched.

The Johnson LMG was never a truly finished design; Johnson was still tinkering with it when the war ended and he ran out of money and customers. Nobody was really sorry to see it go; the Israelis developed the Dror only because they were able to buy the tooling to produce it domestically. In those days they were eager to take anything they could get, but the Dror was soon discarded.

I compared the Johnson to the M1918 BAR only because they were both designed to fill the same tactical role, that of a "machine rifle", which made sense when the ordinary infantryman was armed with a bolt-action M1903 Springfield. The proliferation of the M1 rifle essentially obsoleted the BAR.

That the U.S. Army then tried to push the BAR into a tactical role for which it was unsuited does not mean that it was a POS. (The Johnson IS a POS). The BAR simply cannot compare with true light machine guns such as the Bren or ZB, which can deliver sustained fire.

M

[jmoore]

Excuse the thread drift Tom-M, bring it back if you wish, but here's some Johnson LMG "nerd" photos:




Safe position.


Semi-auto- note the retracted bolt catch.


Full auto. Bolt catch up for open bolt firing.

I don't much care for the bolt catch positioning spring design- it looks to have been robbed off a mouse trap. Otherwise, it's all pretty rugged.



.30 M2 single stack versus .303"SAA double stack.


Note the lack of feed lips on the single stack Johnson mag at top right.


Oh, one other deficiency in the Johnson design- Built in trigger slap! The safety sear hook on the trigger can't decouple from the trigger, so it bouces the trigger forward when the hammer cocks. Annoying, but correctable w/o a huge redesign.

[jmoore]

Eh, found an old photo of a Johnson barrel extention that I screwed onto an L1a1 barrel. (Fits like they were made for each other.)



Also incorporated into Stoner's platform, it just isn't so "slide-y" any more!

Oh, no! POS Johnson parts in the new L129a1!


Sorry, but it's kind of growing on me...Still gotta round up the reddot and the weird folding front grip.

[jmoore]

Whilst I'm defending underdogs, I reckon the Johnson LMG is far superior to it's closest famous Axis counterpart- the FG-42. Except for weight, that is. A really legendary POS that people seem to idolize.


FG42 by Shoei.



Conceptually- super fantastic!
In reality- Trabants or Yugos have a far superior reputation for reliabilty and longevity as an automotive equivalent. Imagine a factory Yugo racecar...

[MGMike]

Ever fired a real one?

Unlike the Johnson, the "late model" FG42 is a surprisingly smooth shooter, though --like the Johnson-- was never fully developed and remained a trouble-plagued work in progress when the war ended.

The design held far more promise than the Johnson ever did, but it was --again, like the Johnson-- just too flimsy to stand the abuse that soldiers unfailingly inflict.

M

[tankhunter]

The FG 42 was a ground breaking design in it's day. However, it is certainly NOT an LMG class Weapon. It was developed as an Assualt Rifle, BUT, the cartridge was TOO Powerefull for it to be accurate or comfortable in the Automatic mode. Had the Germans introduced the 7.92mm Kurtz Cartridge earlier. And then incorporated into this weapon, then things might have been different. Also introduced too late in the war, this then became a drain on manufacturing resources as yet ANOTHER type of weapon to be made.Under the strain of supplying under VERY strained & difficult conditions. Also ensuing that it tied up the ordanance spare system with yet MORE unique to type weapon spares!

[jmoore]

FG42s-No, never fired a real one. Played w/ a few, in fact the man that started me seriously down the milsurp path had the one that's now in the Ft. Benning Infantry Museum.

I've been trying to make a non NFA semi-auto version for a while, but the fire control design just doesn't make a non-FA version very feasible. It REALLY wants to be a 20rd M60.
The Shoei was purchased as reverse engineering aid to made a conceptually similar rifle. Wouldn't call it a reproduction, just a "spawn". That project went on the back burner for several years now, in hopes that someone else would manage to mfg. the same thing. Even at US$4-6000, it would be cheaper to buy than make...

[MGMike]

I've never fired a "First Model" but have shot two "Second Model" guns on separate occasions. They are, as I've said, surprisingly smooth in operation, and they weigh a pound or two less than an M1941 Johnson, which is harsh and jerky by comparison. The 20-round double-stack mag is short and compact enough that in offhand shooting it does not appreciably unbalance the gun, while the long and awkward Johnson magazine tends to act like a flywheel and rotate the gun counterclockwise in bursts.

However, it is important when firing an FG42 to keep one's hand well back on the fore-end, away from the regulator, which spits out hot flaming gas that will cook your fingers! Learned that the hard way...

Truth is, the gun would have made more sense in Kurz, rather than 7.92x57, but the Luftwaffe wasn't listening. It is unlikely that the gun would ever have done into production but for intense inter-service rivalry and lucrative contracts from which, it is said, Hermann Goering stood to profit.

M

[smgguns]

Hi,
I have no dog in this fight but after reading couldn't really resist weighing in. I have never personally even held a real FG42 but we are presently building a new production semi auto only 2nd model FG42. And having shot ours a LOT I can tell you I can usually tell when someone else has fired a real one from what they say about it.

That said I would say MGMike has probably really "been there done that" as the comments he makes mirrors my impression of firing our rifle. Not really a "kick" but a smooth recoil impulse that's is primarily straight back in nature. And oh yes that rifle will give you a wake up call in the form of gas bleed off if you let your fingers get in front of the forearm. And a finger breaking kiss of the charging handle if you get behind the bulge on the forearm ahead of it.

It is better balanced than just about everything I have read about it - and I hate side feed magazines. It balances it's weight well between your hands and I cannot wait to shoot a 3 gun match with one. AFTER I remove the bipod and bayonet from the front of the rifle. It points and swings much better without that added weight.

I also can't wait until we get up and running to the point we can try other calibers..... .308, 7.62x39, maybe 7.92 kurtz...

Rick

[MGMike]

We have cavalierly dismissed the BAR. Compared to the Bren, or ZB or the Japanese guns or the belt-fed German LMGs, the BAR certainly gathers plenty of justifiable criticism. But there is one area in which the original M1918 excels and none of the aforementioned can really compare: If you must snap-shoot offhand, on the move, at targets that appear only momentarily, and you have neither time or opportunity to plant down the bipod feet (or maybe couldn't see the target if you did), the BAR points naturally, is very controllable in 3-shot bursts, and can deliver a lot of firepower-- albeit for a short duration. It has good usable sights and can be fired accurately from the shoulder. Unlike a Bren (and the others), you don't need to suspend it from a sling and fire from the hip while hanging onto the bipod, which is generally a mammoth waste of ammo.

M