If you would like to continue seeing new videos released every month, please consider supporting the page through Patreon. www.patreon.com/machinegunmike or through buying Machine Gun Mike Merchandise. Many different ones out now with many more coming over time. www.etsy.com/shop/MachineGunMikeShop?ref=simple-shop-header-name
Machine Gun Mike so which gun would you take if you were put into a time machine back to ww2 and could have any one ? i think the mg 42 if you could have unlimited ammo and support with others to help, but if i was alone and had to carry my own ammo and was all by my self the BREN would be the best!
a short addition: the BREN was just a slightly modified (caliber change from 8mm mauser to british .303 rimfire, shorter gas system etc) zb26, wich was designed in 1924. so not really that far apart from the BAR
There are downsides though, one of those is you have to *carry* all those rounds. Even with the teams and the other members of the squad carrying extra ammo belts for the guns they could still blow through all their ammo load in less than thirty seconds of sustained fire.
Today in the great German Army the MG3 is used for the MG42 instead as a 'replacement', just look how it looks and shoots...hahaha. Personally, I like German stuff, especially their firearms and some car brands. Germans in general make great durable stuff. www.google.com/search?q=mg3+machine+gun&rlz=1C1SQJL_nlNL864NL864&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Y3TGdydu7cxuoM%252CuNq79YRDd13xMM%252C%252Fm%252F05fdbp&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kR7WuCytggl-efzrBACR8zMl_WHkQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4kZvetIzxAhXoA2MBHSI0AtYQ_B16BAgeEAE#imgrc=Y3TGdydu7cxuoM
Yeah that is true. Everyone is now an ammo carrier for the MG which increases the amount of ammo available for the most ammo intensive weapon in the unit. Interesting concept, and good logistics, just unsure if it translated into a reliable weapon
British had the same idea. the .303 was the same round used by the Lee-Enfield rifle, with each man in the section carrying extra mags and expected to hand over their ammo if needed. each also had the training needed to take over the SSW should the original operator be incapacitated.
The Red Army had the same concept. The Mosin rifle has the same cartridge as the DP-27 and Maxim (7.62x54R). The US Army had a .30-06 springfield cartridge. For Ganand M1 rifles, BAR and Browning machine guns.
@@jondoe3966 right, I'm referencing an ability to directly feed into the MG. BAR/Garand would have to strip ammunition and put into a belt for the MG rather than just pull ammo out of their belt directly into the MG such as the Japanese version. I can see that it's just easier to have a few guys get burdened with carrying extra MG ammo rather than the entire squad carry a little bit more than they need to feed the MG
When I was in the Army 1980, I was selected to carry and use the MG, a slightly modified newer version of the MG 42. On the range, we had competition: Whoever manages to release only one shot, wins. No one came close. The moment you pull the trigger and this monster starts shooting, at least 3-5 shots are already gone. Scary.
The Inglis company in Toronto, later firearms portion absorbed into Canadian Arsenal a crown owned (government owned) company. while Inglis went back to making washing machines and other large appliances. Both companies were well known for their quality.
i actually grew up in Hollywood, and there were guys in my neighborhood who had loaded mags. it's funny to me when people drop the "Hollywood" stereotypes. when in fact the real Hollywood where i grew up was anything but paradise.
Nah a unlimited mag and once they reload their supposedly last mag it only fires like 10 rounds and their out before switching to their pistol which has like 2 mags one of them unlimited XD. Expendable movie about some scenes they were shooting way too much and their ammo count...
That was not lost on the Germans, nor on anyone facing a German infantry squad in combat. The Allies had to devise specific tactics to counteract this weapon (and its predecessor, the MG34).
I'm the same way. It took me a long time to get past my bias toward American firearms but the Bren is truly an amazing firearm and better in its role in pretty much every way compared to the BAR.
I have read that Commonwealth Bren gunners would actually save worn-out barrels to swap out when they wanted to do "area sweeping", because the Bren was normally so accurate that it wasn't great for just sweeping fire around an area like what the MG42 excelled at.
@@guywerry6614 I hadn't heard that before, and don't know if it's true or not, but I for one wouldn't want to have to haul around any more weight than absolutely necessary!
I fired a Bren at the age of 14 or 15 when in the army cadets in australia in the '70s. We had fired the .303 before but as you can imagine with a group of 15 yr olds, the excitement of getting to fire a machine gun was intense. Most of my mates pretty much kept their fingers squeezed on the trigger too long allowing the gun to wander off target, but as I tended to follow instructions, I used short bursts and re-sighted every few rounds. As a result I was pretty pleased that my score was up in the top five, better than some of the seniors and cadet officers. We learned to strip it and assemble it and spent a pleasant couple of hours loading magazines during one weekend camp. It didnt sound anything like this video, we had earplugs and all I could hear was the mechanical clack clack of the feed mechanism. Great fun.
Had one on the mounted on the wall for 3 years it came off a Canadian tank,x2 samurai swords below it and was like a piece of art to me.My wife hated it so i gave all 3 items away sadly.
Im jealous love shooting with my smle 303 rifle and i have a 1944 mosin nagant which is tops but to have a shot with a bren would be awesome and aussie gun laws dont allow me to have one but ill get over to the US one day and get to fire a bren ,bar and 50 cal browning
I fondly remember my days in the army cadets at school and loved shooting this thing. My father spoke highly of it as well from his days in Tobruk and then New Guinea.
My grandfather fought in the Philippines as a Bar gunner. He had good things to say about his Mabel. Only gripe he had was how much ammo he had to carry.
My Filipino father was a US Army captain also fighting the Japanese in the Philippines. He was a short gun so his favorite weapon was the M1 Carbine. He survived WW2 and became a foreign service officer in Vietnam later on.
As I am a former conscript of the German Bundeswehr it's actually the first time I see a US-American shooting an MG42 (old caliber 7.92 Mauser) with the right position of the bipod by leaning INTO it! Well done!
@@MachineGunMike I enjoyed it almost as much as you did coz I only used the MG3 7.62 ... ;-) The real one is really seldom and the ammo is pretty uncommon thus expensive nowadays. I trust you when you stated the caliber... It was fun watching you creeping to the front again and again due to the recoil... 😂😂😂 And your smile about the ridiculousness of that gun's cadence and recoil at 10:46 is priceless 😂😂😂 As we Germans are famous for our music we actually adopted the term cadence for 'rate of fire'... ;-)
As ex British army,I have had the good fortune to fire the B.A.R and it was a thrill.Accurate,controllable and the variant firing speed is,frankly,damn useful.Loved it.And,single shotting,with bipod,almost a snipers weapon.
It's odd, the BAR definitely is outdated by WW2 standards, and the U.S. had this problem with their SMG (the Thompson) as well. But the big problem with the BAR is not necessarily that the design is outdated, but that _the role it was intended to fill_ was outdated. The U.S. wanted, to put it simply, an automatic rifleman in every squad, similar to how the French used their Chauchats in WW1. They wanted the BAR to serve less as a machine gun, and more as an automatic rifle, capable of being equally mobile and accurate to the standard rifleman, but with a slightly greater capacity and rate of fire to suppress the enemy when needed. Just look that the big heavy bipod, and that weird rate reducer mechanism. The BAR was a rifle that was meant to be fired from support like a machine gun, yet it lacked the most important thing for a machine gun. You said it yourself, that magazine is tiny and goes quick even with the reduced fire rate. Now, did the U.S. get the right gun for the job? Absolutely. Did they realize that the job itself was invalidated by more modern machine gun doctrine? Yes they did, which is why we got the M1919A6, which I'm told was an excellent machine gun. I hope very much that you get your hands on one of those, and can get a more accurate comparison between our true MG and it's contemporaries.
I would argue that all three, BAR, Bren, and Type 11, are automatic rifles, and the MG-42 is the only GPMG of this lot. That having been said, there is little doubt that the two Allied weapons certainly faced off against the two Axis weapons. Thanks Mike for bringing this to us!
As our guys ran into more and more MG 42s we added more BARs to the Squad to counter. Ideal? No, but better than nothing.And you can't falt the Thomson for reliability.The bolt cost more than two MP 40s put together. In fact the MP 40 was such a Jammer they Branded it as the Smecherger to try to inspire confidence in it.The STEN was derived from from the MP 40 and we know how that worked out.
I could see the Type 11 spitting out the strippers, or dropping them. I cannot imagine reloading this hopper in a precise manner in a night fight. Strong presentation of MG's brother. Very nice.
@@MachineGunMike the Japanese logistics were usually overstretched given their aggressive land invasions. It's for this overlooked reason I believe that having a squad with the same Ammo type was important. Like most infantry/Land Japanese weapons they were outdated and unpractical.
I love the BAR. My grandpa carried one in the Korean war. He survived shrapnel going through his neck from a grenade. Keep up the GREAT work my friend. Your video's are ALWAYS top notch. 👍👍
I was in the British army in 1968, squad machine gun was a Bren re-chambered from 0.303 British to 7.62MM NATO. Very accurate heck of a gun. In a famous battle during the Korean war an infantry regiment the Gloucester light infantry with 4 Bren guns withstood an attack from a much larger force of Chinese troops.
Trained on the" Bren" in basic training it had been re-bored then to 7.62 X 51 mm instead of .303in and had a different flash eliminator. Sights had been changed too. You could actually fire single shots if you wanted it was that smooth. We also used to use the "Bren" Mags on our SLR's but they did have feed issues but it was fun for a "cowboy shoot " on ranges. The MG 42 is really a General purpose MG as opposed to a Light MG.
I was able to squeeze 7 bursts out of a belt with 15 rds. during training with the MG3 we used in German air force. It is in fact quite precise and very accurate. If U taking it apart, the indestines are very well made, grinding, polish, double wire springs etc. despite its cheap apperance...
@@TeppichPilot Even if that is so, at 1200 rounds a minute it still sends shivers down anyone’s spine. I wouldn’t want to be in the direction of its business end for sure. 😱
@@andyhooutdoors he is referring to an old training (more like propaganda) video from the war where the U.S. compares German guns to American guns. When comparing the mg-42 to the 1919 they shoot 50 rounds on a target, and the 1919 gets more hits then the mg-42. After this demonstration they say "remember its bark is worse then its bite"
Also idk if anyone has pointed it out, but the 3-camera set up is a great idea. Now I don't have to rewind to watch it shoot again and I can see it from 3 different angles. I especially like the 3rd camera, cause the sound is so much punchier.
Yeah this what was taught in the BW... and it was not bad at all. However the G3 was ofc a much more pleasent and acurate experience to shoot maybe the only thing I miss from the time. Ah also most guys were quite ok even officers I was in the Luftwaffe which was a bit more "relaxed" and technical units
@@MachineGunMike next time, don't turn your legs sideways, the gun has to much recoil. Dig your feet into the ground until you can support your whole body on just your feet and the bipod, whithout your hands touching the gun. That's how it's taught in the German army and it works quite well.
Japanese Type 11 looks like a 50s Space gun. That feeding mechanism is very cool, can immediately determine how much ammo is left and feed in increments of 5 rounds.
80 years ago, all these guns were firing at each other in one way or another. The absolute last thing anyone was thinking was that one day some dude would be laying in the sand giving his review on each one for entertainment haha good stuff, man.
I joined the army cadets in1966 aged 13, we trained with Lee Enfield, Sterling SMG and Bren's, we learned how to strip and build Bren's blind fold in rediculousely short time, seconds. At 13 they were so much fun than girls. Happy days and fond memories.
The Bren gun was a series of light machine guns (LMG) made by Britain in the 1930s and used in various roles until 1992. While best known for its role as the British and Commonwealth forces' primary infantry LMG in World War II, it was also used in the Korean War and saw service throughout the latter half of the 20th century, including the 1982 Falklands War. Although fitted with a bipod, it could also be mounted on a tripod or be vehicle-mounted. The Bren gun was a licensed version of the Czechoslovak ZGB 33 light machine gun which, in turn, was a modified version of the ZB vz. 26, which British Army officials had tested during a firearms service competition in the 1930s. The later Bren gun featured a distinctive top-mounted curved box magazine, conical flash hider, and quick change barrel. The name Bren was derived from Brno, the Czechoslovak city in Moravia, where the Zb vz. 26 was designed (in the Zbrojovka Brno Factory) and Enfield, site of the British Royal Small Arms Factory. The designer was Václav Holek, a gun inventor and design engineer.
I used the Bren during my time with the NZ Army and also the rare Heavy Barelled SLR which is the equivalent of the B.A.R. I have to tell you that when used in single shot, the Bren is as good as any sniper rifle. All it needed was a scope.
The Bren is a Canadian version made by Inglis; the company's name and manufacture date -- INGLIS 1942 -- is clearly visible at 1:10. So many of these have been deactivated and so it is really nice to see some in operating order.
Neat watching the hopper descend on the Japanese one - good guide to remaining ammo. Other negative not mentioned re this hopper type is the easy ingress of dirt etc into the gubbins.
Interesting vid, thanks mate. I was in the British army in the 80's and we still used the Bren gun, although it had been renamed the "L.M.G. (Light Machine Gun) didn't feel that light when you had to carry it on a 12 mile yomp....light my arse:-) but it was a good gun and sooo accurate.
The 7.62 GPMG is modelled on the MG42 as it was so effective. The Bren (LMG) was also used in the 1st Gulf war as the SA80 was prone to jamming in dusty onditions. Great video 👍🏻
Bren and SA80 were used for totally different jobs. They didnt just hand everybody in the british army a bren instead because SA80s were unreliable at the time
@@Ukraineaissance2014 I'm fully aware having been using the A1, 2 and 3 over the last 20 years. The LMG was a section light weapon, I never once said it replaced the SA80 as a personal weapon system.
Such a toy collection is very impressive for such a young guy like you! When I win the lottery, these will definitely be items that will be 1st on my list! Thanks for sharing Mike!
@@sandemike The ammunition isn't even the worst. In addition to your equipment including the G36, the machine gunner must also carry the MG 3 weighing 11.5 kilograms. The second machine gunner only carries the spare barrel and 2 boxes of ammunition that don't weigh much
Fantastic comparison of the different MGs. I think perhaps you might have shown how the MG42's barrels were so easily changed out due to it's rapid fire, quickly overheating them. It was actually said it was difficult to distinguish individual rounds being fired.
Which one would I least like to carry as a soldier. MG42. Which one would I least like to supply. MG42. Which would I least like to change the barrel on. BAR (because you can't). Which looks the worst to reload - The Japanese one. Having fired three out of the 4 I prefer the BREN out of all of them. Interesting to note, whilst the British Army shifted to FN MAG's and then to the Minimi, the Royal Marines still used the BREN for arctic warfare up to the late 80's as it was also very reliable in the cold (rechambered to 7.62). The MG 42 renamed MG3 is still in service, but I'm terms of longevity the BREN isn't far behind it. I believe the Indian army also used it for decades after it was shifts out of British Army standard issue.
Yeah there are pictures of the Indian Army using the BREN(chambered in 7.62 NATO) to this day at high altitude posts on the Pakistan and China border. They purchased the Negev(around 10000) to replace them but there is still more than 30000 of them in service to this day.
The 7.62 LMG ( rechambered version of the Bren) was also used by rear echelon and support units (Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery) used them in the first Gulf War in 1990.
But of the four, only the MG42 has endured in service with its parent nation until today. The BAR did have a long service life too but has since been phased out
Another fantastic video! Your presentation is excellent Mike. This is the first time I have seen a type 11. Wow, what a unique system of loading! I really enjoyed seeing this batch of classic machine guns in action. Thanks very much Machine Gun Mike!!
"The type 11 might have a bad rep. But there are a lot of dead enemies of Japan that can witness to how effective it was".... I believe that was a quote from a ww2 marine veteran. Also commenting on the type 92
People don't seem to realize that Japan's main focus was China. Their outdated equipment was perfectly adequate for the war they wanted to fight, but not the war they ended up getting.
@@jimjamauto the type 11 was brought into service in 1922. Of course it wasn't adequate for WW2. But it didn't have to be. Because it was replaced by the type 96 machine gun, the type 97 machine gun and eventually the type 99 machine gun, that were fundamentally different from the type 11.
@@iexist.imnotjoking5700 I'm just saying that people usually wonder why Japan relied on mostly obsolete equipment in general, and it's because they didn't expect a long fight with the US. Their gear was good enough for conquering Asia, not good enough for fighting the US.
@@jimjamauto But they didn't rely on obsolete equipment. A lot of it entered circulation again around 1944/45 but I don't think there was ever a point at which they relied on obsolete equipment. The only example I can think of are the Japanese tanks.
At my time in the German Bundeswehr i had a MG3 thats the follow MG of the MG42 but with less RPM to allow the Barrel to hold longer....i remember the funny Barrel change when the actual barrel is too hot from shooting, put it in the Gras next to my position and the Gras started to burn right away with lot smoke🤣 And the funny top cover popping up sometimes ,and me hammering my fist on it to get it down🤣
The backup barrel is in a flip open container so it is supposed to put the hot barrel into it and than flip the cold one into the MG. Putting it into the grass was not a smart move and would cost U a box of beer in the GAF...
Bren a beast worked for the british army in many wars and for over 80-90 years and you could conserve ammunition well.as well as that, it was easy to make and was by ww2 standards pretty light
The BAR and the BREN are one type of weapon and the MG42 and Type 11 are meant for a completely different role. The first two are LMG's which could be used from a standing or prone position for both suppressive fire as well as more precision fire. The latter two were meant to be fired prone or from an emplacement, for suppression or for mowing down a large amount charging enemies at medium to close range. As an LMG, I would say the BREN takes the cake; it's better built, more reliable and more accurate than the BAR. When it comes to the MMG's nothing can really beat the MG42. The Japanese concept was pretty unusual and it worked just fine in the Asian theatre but I would say it is still outclassed by Hitlers buzzsaw for the most part.
It certainly is. The MG3, which is essentially just a slightly modified MG42 chambered in 7.62x51mm, is still fielded by many armies around the world to this day. Ranging from primary infantry machine gun to vehicle mounted, like on the Leopard 2 MBT for example.
The Bren we used showed when & where is was made, ROFE 1943 for example. Royal Ordinance Factory Enfield. The original caliber .303 had 2 lines grooved into the metal crossing it out & the new caliber 7.62 was written into the metal. Another note related to the Bren, the British army switched main combat rifles from 0.303 British to the Belgian FN, British designation SLR 7.62 NATO around 1958. It held a 20 round magazine. The Bren had the curved magazine, I think it held 28 rounds if I remember or maybe 30. The 20 round magazine for the main combat fitted the Bren.
@@ardshielcomplex8917 Just the barrels got hot & you had to change them! The glorious Gloucesters peed on them during a battle against a big force of North Korean & Chinese soldiers in Korea in the early 50's.
30 odd years ago, the Australian Armoured Corps used Leopard tanks, and I guess they came with Mg-3's. Our M113's used .30 and .50 cal Browning mg's, so I was trained to use all of them. The .50 cal is a beast, but a lot of fun to fire. Neither Browning had any sights as they'd proven useless due to vibration, it was a matter of pointing the barrel at the target and then firing short bursts and following the tracers until the target was hit. The Mg-3 was a different story. The sights on those work perfectly. The first target called out to me was 500-600 metres distant. My first burst was dead on target. Compared to the .50 cal, or even the .30 cal, I didn't notice the recoil at all.
@@MachineGunMike As you'd know, the Mg-3 was developed from the Mg-42. I've never fired the earlier weapon, but out of all the different weapons I got to fire, the Mg-3 was my favourite. I saw your comparison of WW2 sub-machineguns, but you missed the best of them, the Owen gun. If you can lay hands on one it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts, compared to the others you've reviewed.
@@MachineGunMike Ian from Forgotten weapons reviewed one, but I think it was part of the Smithsonian, or a similar collection. I've used the Owen gun's successor, the F1. Perhaps they are more readily available in the US?
When the German army requested a new MG, besides wanting something easier to make and supply to a lot of troops (effectively one per every squad of 10), they specifically mentioned WW1 experiences. Slower-firing MGs could sweep across an area with advancing troops and still miss some, "between the bullets" so to speak. This is why they had the higher rate of fire on the MG42. A few things I picked up from having read one of the US military's studies of what made the German army able to do so much with, relatively, so little: The Wehrmacht's doctrine was not rifle-centric like many of the allies, where the MG was considered a "support" tool, but MG-centric. The MG was central to every squad of 10 or so men (literally, as well as metaphorically) and the tactics revolved around the MG. This means the gunner was usually well trained, did not waste ammo unnecessarily, and was well-supported by the squad. In practice, every soldier also tended to help carry ammo for it, since it was such a vital part of the German military. The typical engagement was something like this: at first sign of enemy contact, everyone hits the dirt. The MG is (ideally still) in the center of the squad, next to the squad leader. Suppression commences, while the squad leader directs the flanks to maneuver to the side of the enemy and close in. Rifle flanks and MG leapfrog forward, if necessary, covering each other. Finally, offensive grenades (high explosive, low frag) are used when at close enough range to storm the enemy position, killing or stunning any enemies just before breaching. Obviously if the enemy is spotted first, the MG42's massive first burst capability was a huge asset in ensuring as many of the enemy are taken down as possible before they hit the ground - basically like a shotgun spray. This seems intuitive and even basic, but as I understand, this differed from US squad tactics going into the war, in that the latter were a little more cumbersome, with forward scout elements and the support weapons at the rear, often times leaving the squad leader at odds trying to coordinate the two.
The MG-42 is the best for his high accuracy and rate of fire and it is still in use today renamed for MG-3 but using the 7,62x51mm instead the original 7,92x57mm ammo. The Bren is the second best and a very versatile machine gun. And the third place goes to the BAR because of his powerful 30.06 ammo and despite his low capacity it had a huge vantage over the japanese Type 11 because this gun is a nightmare to reloading.
I would agree with that both the MG42 and Bren were rechambered for 7.62. The disadvantage of the former being the opposite disadvantage of the later although as a LMG I always prefered the LMG(Bren) over the FN MAG which was developed from the MG42 albeit with a slower rate of fire and belt feed.
An advantage, particularly over the BAR, was the quick change barrel. This made it machine gun, rather than the BAR which was actually an overweight automatic rifle.
@@alecblunden8615 yep the BAR was a rifle that was designed during WW1 so it was showing its age in WW2. The gun was designed for a tactic called walking fire where American dough boys would shoot the gun while crossing no man's land to get to the Germans trenches. It didn't come with a bi pod back then but was supposed to be fired from the hip in semiautomatic mode. When you got to enemy trenches you were yo switch to full automatic. The 20 round magazines were seen as good enough for the role intended but the Americans never used it for walking fire because they realized it wasn't a go idea. Instead it was forced into the role of the Lewis gun which it's design was never intended for. In all reality the gun wasn't a very good squad automatic but that's what the American military had and never replaced it until the M60 came out.
I trained a lot on the later version of the Bren we called the LMG in the British army, chambered in 7.62 NATO. It was an excellent weapon, almost too accurate to be a good LMG!
With a different magazine design Type 11 machine gun would have been a much more effective squad weapon. A snail type magazine with 50 rounds, although heavier would have given it an advantage over the BAR & BREN.
As employed in actual service, only one of these was a true machine gun, the MG42. The rest were more accurately described as automatic rifles. I get that the distinction seems pretty thin, and may only matter in doctrinal terms. But the automatic rifle was not really intended for sustained automatic fire, as the belt fed machine guns were. They were intended as a base-of-fire weapon for an infantry squad.
The Bren is very definately a light machine gun. It has a rapid changeable barrel, rapid magazine change especially with a number two, fittings for a tripod, but even on the bipod very capable of sustained fire. Given how quickly the mg42 could overheat the Bren would certainly be as capable of sustained fire. Also vehicle mounted as a machine gun on the universal carrier, amongst others. The Bar and type 11 are certainly automatic rifles, the Bren both technically and doctrinally a light machine gun.
The Bren light machine gun and and FN FAL rifle are not even close, either mechanically (no barrel change) or doctrinally. It' was employed as a crew served section level light machine gun with a number two and the rest of the section typically also carrying spare magazines for it. In later British service the GPMG (FN MAG) , LMG (Bren) and SLR (FN FAL) all had their distinct roles. You might have used the GPMG but clearly never used the Bren if you think it's anything like the SLR.
So this is where you are misunstanding this then. The Bren has a top loaded 30 round magazine firing from an open bolt. This makes magazine changes incredably smooth, either solo but especially with a number two. The rapid change barrel and 30 round top loaded box are fundamentally different propositions to the typical bottom fed rifle box mag on the BAR and FN FAL.it's not a trivial difference in operation. Neither of the later able to be tripod or vehicle mounted like the Bren either. You don't have to be belt fed to achieve sustained automatic fire, the hotchkiss or type 92 being other examples.
FN FAL is nothing like the Bren. But maybe everybody that has ever used one and classified it as an LMG is wrong and maybe somehow you are right and it is a automatic rifle.... You have to know the odds are against you though. Good luck. Out.
I've used all 3 over many years. Nobody at any point is saying the FN MAG is the same as the Bren so let's just disregard that as done. The point in question is also the SLR and the Bren are fundamentally different too and only one of them is an automatic rifle. There that was easy wasn't it?
I hate to point out the obvious, especially as much as I love the BAR, but the mg42 is belt fed and has a ludicrous rate of fire, which in my opinion, makes it better than the rest.
Depends. It's really much harder to hit shit whit then the other 2. But then again that is not the point. The point is to keep the enemy supressed so you single shot buddies can aim an finish them off. The other two are much more accurate and are more of a threat. As a defencive weapon the mg 49 excels but the other to migh be a little better on the move.
Big problem with the MG42 is feeding it! It eats ammunition so fast! I liked the BREN and loved shooting it. However, I test fired the Russian belt fed PK and loved it. Similar rate of fire to the BREN but the advantage of belt fed. Sure, it was not as well machined, but it worked and was very reliable. Sadly, I had to relegate my BREN to number two on my list. However, of the Heavies, I loved the Vickers MG. That MG fired all day long. There is a report of one in Tobruk which fired non-stop for 7 days!!!!!!!!!!! this prevented the Germans taking Tobruk.
My great uncle was a pioneer during WWII. According to him it was no issue as you had six other guys loading new belts. It was after two or three days of near constant firing at Russian charges that they finally ran out of ammunition. You didn’t care if you had ammo for tomorrow. That was an issue for tomorrow. The charging soldiers were an issue for today. When you need to relocate and fire constantly which would you prefer? 150 round belts, 20 or 30 box mags, or a massive MG that can fire for days but is difficult to move?
The mg42 could be used as a light machine-gun using the bipod, but also could be used as a heavy machine-gun in a defense position using the tripod. I would like to see a trial with the other machine-guns in both situations.
It was deadly on d-day. A lot of Americans were killed thanks to the mg42. Also the sad part before it was that US training were also really not accurate against the real mg42, the higher ups wanted soldiers to not fear the it. Unfortunately it in turn caused a lot of lives
@Ming Yang the M1 Garand was a spendid semi-automatic rifle, but the "game changer" was the SCR-300 portable radio transceiver. Every platoon had one and its was useful to call artillery or mortar suport to deal with a entreched MG42
I had the opportunity to use the MG 42 in the Italian army, in the MG42 / 59 variant, an excellent weapon, although I believe the original model, perhaps slightly better, has a higher firing rate, a lower weight of 2 kg (it is not a little ! carry it on your shoulder on mountain trails then we discuss it ^^) compared to MG42 / 59, but, do you really need 1200 shots / minute against infantry? in addition, the quick barrel change system in the MG42 / 59 is better. the BREN is excellent, extremely precise, indestructible and reliable, the Bar is penalized by the magazine of only 20 rounds, the Type 11 has suffered oblivion due to the worse age of the bar, moreover, like the bad Breda Mod 30, its hopper loader collected dust, debris and mud during the cycle, a problem aggravated (again as in the Breda 30) by the oiler. Personally I believe that BREN, BAR, Type 11 belong to the category defined in Italian, rifle-submachine guns; while the MG42 than that of the light machine guns, closer, for example, to Brow. M1919, which in BAR
The German infantry doctrine called for burst firing, so the 1200 rpm was never intended for sustain firing. In fact, doing so would over heat and burnout the barrel. As for "do you really need 1200 shots/minute against infantry". Not for stationary targets. But, yes, you do if they are running from cover to cover and are only exposed for 1-2 seconds which means the MG42 gunner loses about 1/2 second to react, aim, and fire a burst from his gun at a moving target.
My dad started out in Normandy as a BAR gunner. As such his job was to pin down the enemy while the rest of the unit maneuvered or flanked the enemy. But after a week or so he told me he realized this job was better done with a Browning 1919 mg or with accurate rapid fire from a M1 rifle. He said the BAR always ran out of ammo too fast. The gunner and assistant gunners could not carry enough mags to keep it running for very long. It sounded to me like the mags were to bulky and added to much to the total weight. In short the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages. PS: His opinion may have been colored by the fact he was captured near St Lo because he ran out of ammo and got knocked silly by a German grenade while trying to find ammo. Luckily he managed to escape during a counter attack by his battalion. But he got beat up pretty bad by the SS before that happened.
You need proper training and discipline in order to use the MG42 correctly. The salvos should be clipped to 4 - 5 bullets. The ammo consumption can be controlled.
Excellent video. I sincerely appreciate the efforts. Job well done. As you mentioned this is only "an over sampling". You could spend a lot of time on the ins and outs of each LMG, but just seeing them in action is a great start. FYI: the Bren is a derivative of the ZB26, as you mentioned, but it is certainly of the same era as the BAR (BAR 1918, ZB26 1924). The Type 11 is also of the early 1920's. All three have the milled receiver while the newer MG42 has the stamped (as you mentioned). Of further note: the BAR was designed as a "heavy rifle" to supplement infantry armed with bolt action Springfield 1903's (no quick change barrel, only 20 round mag, and essentially the first SAW), while the ZB26, Bren, and Type 11 were all designed as LMG's from the beginning). The BAR served as a SAW in WW2 far more than in the LMG support role. The US's MMG M1919Ax served in the LMG role most often. The MG42 as we know was designed as a GPMG to be able to perform the roles of LMG, HMG, vehicle mounted MG, and more and it preformed them all very well (it's biggest detractor being its big appetite for ammo). Thanks again, I'll be watching! :)
My father was in WWII and carried the BAR, he swore by the gun, never at the gun. Every conversation we ever had concerning the BAR was how reliable it was, it would shoot no matter what the conditions were.
It was a higher rpm to begin with but was lowered. Thats brilliant in it's self but the genius for me is the quick change barrel, flick the catch out and slide it out, slide new one in.
That was fun!!! Demonstrating the abilities and the difference between those machine guns shows the contrasting philosophies of their respective designers. One of the most extreme being the BAR compared to the MG-42 since the BAR design was so old using all machined parts, and the MG-42, which incorporated newer manufacturing concepts like using stamped metal parts wherever possible. Look at the AK47, though not included in this comparison but that weapon is one of the best examples of this solution to the problem of making guns quicker, cheaper and using much lower tolerances. I would’ve also liked to have you include the Browning.30 cal in this comparison since it also used quite a bit of stamped metal parts.
What would be cool... is to do a video with your go pro about 200 yards down range and send a few mags/belts near it to give perspective of what they sounded like on the receiving end
Fired the Bren many times as an army school cadet. Even as young teenagers we were allowed to have that experience because it was considered to be safe and reliable and we had good regular army instructors. The stripping procedure is still burned in my brain....piston, barrel, butt, body, bipod. My late father in law was a Feldwebel in the Wehrmacht & in charge of a 3 man section armed with the MG34. He used to tell me how when fighting in Russia setting up the 3 weapons to cross fire was very effective. A pair of them could also be mounted on a stand for anti aircraft use, although not particularly effective. He at least had the opportunity of letting fly at some passing Polikarpov I-5s. He was eventually taken POW in North Africa and never saw the introduction of the MG-42.
Apparently the sound of the MG 42 had a disheartening affect on Allied troops. They'd hear it and go to ground. Also the BAR was a seriously long lived weapon - it was produced in 1918... AND it actually saw service in WW1. So it saw service in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam.
If you would like to continue seeing new videos released every month, please consider supporting the page through Patreon. www.patreon.com/machinegunmike
or through buying Machine Gun Mike Merchandise. Many different ones out now with many more coming over time. www.etsy.com/shop/MachineGunMikeShop?ref=simple-shop-header-name
if you were in a time warp back to ww2 -i think the bren wins what do you think ?
Machine Gun Mike so which gun would you take if you were put into a time machine back to ww2 and could have any one ? i think the mg 42 if you could have unlimited ammo and support with others to help, but if i was alone and had to carry my own ammo and was all by my self the BREN would be the best!
@@bretnmannn same
a short addition: the BREN was just a slightly modified (caliber change from 8mm mauser to british .303 rimfire, shorter gas system etc) zb26, wich was designed in 1924. so not really that far apart from the BAR
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yes
MG 42 is still the most devastating impressive machine gun to view. The amount of rounds that thing spits out in seconds is terrifyingly destructive..
There are downsides though, one of those is you have to *carry* all those rounds. Even with the teams and the other members of the squad carrying extra ammo belts for the guns they could still blow through all their ammo load in less than thirty seconds of sustained fire.
Sounds just like an M-60, wonder why? Love the little guy: shoot, crawl back, shoot, crawl back, shoot, crawl back
@@alganhar1 Bruh, have you been watching that bullshit 1940's propaganda on the MG42?
It’s nothing more than a tater gun compared to modern guns like the mini gun
Today in the great German Army the MG3 is used for the MG42 instead as a 'replacement', just look how it looks and shoots...hahaha. Personally, I like German stuff, especially their firearms and some car brands. Germans in general make great durable stuff. www.google.com/search?q=mg3+machine+gun&rlz=1C1SQJL_nlNL864NL864&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Y3TGdydu7cxuoM%252CuNq79YRDd13xMM%252C%252Fm%252F05fdbp&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kR7WuCytggl-efzrBACR8zMl_WHkQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4kZvetIzxAhXoA2MBHSI0AtYQ_B16BAgeEAE#imgrc=Y3TGdydu7cxuoM
Any japanese riffelman was carrying ammunition and could feed the squad automatic. Understated concept.
Yeah that is true. Everyone is now an ammo carrier for the MG which increases the amount of ammo available for the most ammo intensive weapon in the unit.
Interesting concept, and good logistics, just unsure if it translated into a reliable weapon
British had the same idea.
the .303 was the same round used by the Lee-Enfield rifle, with each man in the section carrying extra mags and expected to hand over their ammo if needed. each also had the training needed to take over the SSW should the original operator be incapacitated.
The Red Army had the same concept. The Mosin rifle has the same cartridge as the DP-27 and Maxim (7.62x54R).
The US Army had a .30-06 springfield cartridge. For Ganand M1 rifles, BAR and Browning machine guns.
@@jondoe3966 great minds think alike...
@@jondoe3966 right, I'm referencing an ability to directly feed into the MG. BAR/Garand would have to strip ammunition and put into a belt for the MG rather than just pull ammo out of their belt directly into the MG such as the Japanese version.
I can see that it's just easier to have a few guys get burdened with carrying extra MG ammo rather than the entire squad carry a little bit more than they need to feed the MG
When I was in the Army 1980, I was selected to carry and use the MG, a slightly modified newer version of the MG 42. On the range, we had competition: Whoever manages to release only one shot, wins. No one came close. The moment you pull the trigger and this monster starts shooting, at least 3-5 shots are already gone. Scary.
absolutly tru my uncle said that to us to, He served in Pakistan Army
we tried it, too. never managed to release a single round- at least 2 to 3.
1986: 3./165
@@matthiaspenzlin6465 Take one round from the belt!
Yes I had the MG74 in Nato caliber and 850/rpm
It was fun but hard to run if you see your friends with the Steyr AUG
sorry, our standart was 15 rounds-7bursts. 1979 Pz Gren.
The machining on that Bren gun is absolutely beautiful
The Inglis company in Toronto, later firearms portion absorbed into Canadian Arsenal a crown owned (government owned) company. while Inglis went back to making washing machines and other large appliances. Both companies were well known for their quality.
Adds to cost hence mg42 wins
Parts manufactured in different countries were interchangeable, which was a plus.
Not like Hollywood, where a single mag has 10,000 rounds.
I thought it was a mag with infinite rounds and each weapon only weighs a couple of ounces.
i actually grew up in Hollywood, and there were guys in my neighborhood who had loaded mags. it's funny to me when people drop the "Hollywood" stereotypes. when in fact the real Hollywood where i grew up was anything but paradise.
Nah a unlimited mag and once they reload their supposedly last mag it only fires like 10 rounds and their out before switching to their pistol which has like 2 mags one of them unlimited XD.
Expendable movie about some scenes they were shooting way too much and their ammo count...
@@bconni2 I got the funny feeling he was talking about movies not your suburb, the way you describe your town its a dangerous place to live.
@@rogernicholls2079 you completely missed my point, entirely. and Hollywood isn't a suburb. it's Los Angeles metro.
That MG42 has a very distinct sound, I would have shit my pants, being on the muzzle end and hearing that.
Me too
That was not lost on the Germans, nor on anyone facing a German infantry squad in combat. The Allies had to devise specific tactics to counteract this weapon (and its predecessor, the MG34).
@@chuckschillingvideos Mg34 not 38
@@kevin_1230 yeah, sorry. Corrected it. Was in the middle of a teleconference.
Ask the Talibans when they first heard a MG3 with a prloaded spring... ;)
Growing up always loved the BAR. However over thr years I've learned to really appreciate the BREN... Thank you for posting!
spacedredd it is an amazing machine.
Nice name @spacedredd and yes bren is great
I'm the same way. It took me a long time to get past my bias toward American firearms but the Bren is truly an amazing firearm and better in its role in pretty much every way compared to the BAR.
I have read that Commonwealth Bren gunners would actually save worn-out barrels to swap out when they wanted to do "area sweeping", because the Bren was normally so accurate that it wasn't great for just sweeping fire around an area like what the MG42 excelled at.
@@guywerry6614 I hadn't heard that before, and don't know if it's true or not, but I for one wouldn't want to have to haul around any more weight than absolutely necessary!
I fired a Bren at the age of 14 or 15 when in the army cadets in australia in the '70s. We had fired the .303 before but as you can imagine with a group of 15 yr olds, the excitement of getting to fire a machine gun was intense. Most of my mates pretty much kept their fingers squeezed on the trigger too long allowing the gun to wander off target, but as I tended to follow instructions, I used short bursts and re-sighted every few rounds. As a result I was pretty pleased that my score was up in the top five, better than some of the seniors and cadet officers. We learned to strip it and assemble it and spent a pleasant couple of hours loading magazines during one weekend camp. It didnt sound anything like this video, we had earplugs and all I could hear was the mechanical clack clack of the feed mechanism. Great fun.
Had one on the mounted on the wall for 3 years it came off a Canadian tank,x2 samurai swords below it and was like a piece of art to me.My wife hated it so i gave all 3 items away sadly.
Im jealous love shooting with my smle 303 rifle and i have a 1944 mosin nagant which is tops but to have a shot with a bren would be awesome and aussie gun laws dont allow me to have one but ill get over to the US one day and get to fire a bren ,bar and 50 cal browning
Piston, barrel, butt, body, bipod..... the Bren’s parts were drummed into us!
Fired it many times loved the weapon, wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end
I fondly remember my days in the army cadets at school and loved shooting this thing.
My father spoke highly of it as well from his days in Tobruk and then New Guinea.
My grandfather fought in the Philippines as a Bar gunner. He had good things to say about his Mabel. Only gripe he had was how much ammo he had to carry.
Thanks for your story.
My Filipino father was a US Army captain also fighting the Japanese in the Philippines. He was a short gun so his favorite weapon was the M1 Carbine. He survived WW2 and became a foreign service officer in Vietnam later on.
My father was a Bren Gunner. He was an Irish UN peacekeeper in the Congo in 61
Was he there on jadotville?
I loved seeing in the film Jadotville where the Irish soldier used the bren as a sniper rifle
As I am a former conscript of the German Bundeswehr it's actually the first time I see a US-American shooting an MG42 (old caliber 7.92 Mauser) with the right position of the bipod by leaning INTO it! Well done!
Knut Ritter thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
@@MachineGunMike I enjoyed it almost as much as you did coz I only used the MG3 7.62 ... ;-) The real one is really seldom and the ammo is pretty uncommon thus expensive nowadays. I trust you when you stated the caliber... It was fun watching you creeping to the front again and again due to the recoil... 😂😂😂 And your smile about the ridiculousness of that gun's cadence and recoil at 10:46 is priceless 😂😂😂
As we Germans are famous for our music we actually adopted the term cadence for 'rate of fire'... ;-)
As ex British army,I have had the good fortune to fire the B.A.R and it was a thrill.Accurate,controllable and the variant firing speed is,frankly,damn useful.Loved it.And,single shotting,with bipod,almost a snipers weapon.
Agreed, 30 round mags would have been an improvement though.
It's odd, the BAR definitely is outdated by WW2 standards, and the U.S. had this problem with their SMG (the Thompson) as well. But the big problem with the BAR is not necessarily that the design is outdated, but that _the role it was intended to fill_ was outdated. The U.S. wanted, to put it simply, an automatic rifleman in every squad, similar to how the French used their Chauchats in WW1. They wanted the BAR to serve less as a machine gun, and more as an automatic rifle, capable of being equally mobile and accurate to the standard rifleman, but with a slightly greater capacity and rate of fire to suppress the enemy when needed. Just look that the big heavy bipod, and that weird rate reducer mechanism. The BAR was a rifle that was meant to be fired from support like a machine gun, yet it lacked the most important thing for a machine gun. You said it yourself, that magazine is tiny and goes quick even with the reduced fire rate.
Now, did the U.S. get the right gun for the job? Absolutely. Did they realize that the job itself was invalidated by more modern machine gun doctrine? Yes they did, which is why we got the M1919A6, which I'm told was an excellent machine gun. I hope very much that you get your hands on one of those, and can get a more accurate comparison between our true MG and it's contemporaries.
TheGoldenCaulk I plan on buying a 1919 one day. All about the right deal at the right time though.
I would argue that all three, BAR, Bren, and Type 11, are automatic rifles, and the MG-42 is the only GPMG of this lot. That having been said, there is little doubt that the two Allied weapons certainly faced off against the two Axis weapons.
Thanks Mike for bringing this to us!
Bruce R. Gadbois You’re welcome!
As our guys ran into more and more MG 42s we added more BARs to the Squad to counter. Ideal? No, but better than nothing.And you can't falt the Thomson for reliability.The bolt cost more than two MP 40s put together. In fact the MP 40 was such a Jammer they Branded it as the Smecherger to try to inspire confidence in it.The STEN was derived from from the MP 40 and we know how that worked out.
@@johnneill990 i think you meant MP18, not MP40. MP40 was excellent SMG, and inspired both US and Soviets to come up with M3 Grease Gun and PPS 43
The British Army carried the Bren, known in later years as the LMG, right up until the early 1990s.
Number of wars its been in is amazing, from WW2 in the 40's, Korea in the 50's, Aden & the troubles in Ireland in the 60's & Falklands in the 80's.
Same same Aussie Army
Most militaries would rather replace soldiers than equipment.
I could see the Type 11 spitting out the strippers, or dropping them. I cannot imagine reloading this hopper in a precise manner in a night fight.
Strong presentation of MG's brother. Very nice.
Rahatlakhoom it really was a horrible idea when you think back about it.
@@MachineGunMike the Japanese logistics were usually overstretched given their aggressive land invasions. It's for this overlooked reason I believe that having a squad with the same Ammo type was important. Like most infantry/Land Japanese weapons they were outdated and unpractical.
MG 42. What a machine gun. My favorite of all time even when put against modern machine guns.
The mg 42 and evan the 88 would be effective now adays!
And it's still in use today
Technically you could argue it is a 'modern' MG.... As the MG3 For example is just a 42 with a make over.
I love the BAR. My grandpa carried one in the Korean war. He survived shrapnel going through his neck from a grenade. Keep up the GREAT work my friend. Your video's are ALWAYS top notch. 👍👍
Your grandpa sounds like a badass!!!!!
@@MachineGunMike He was a great man. Miss him dearly. Do you own all the guns in this video?
ryan moeller Yes sir. Should be releasing a review video of the Type 11 in a couple months.
They were truly the greatest generation.
@@MachineGunMike That's awesome!! I hope to own a BAR one day and carry on my Grandpa's legacy. Looking forward to seeing more video's from ya. 👍👍
ryan moeller you in the states? If so, you can get one man! Just set money aside and keep looking for a deal. I hope you get one eventually!
I was in the British army in 1968, squad machine gun was a Bren re-chambered from 0.303 British to 7.62MM NATO. Very accurate heck of a gun. In a famous battle during the Korean war an infantry regiment the Gloucester light infantry with 4 Bren guns withstood an attack from a much larger force of Chinese troops.
Aussie were on the other hill with thier brens and SMLE
I can't get enough of the lub, lub, lub of the BAR in slow fire. Sounds like its pulse at rest.
Trained on the" Bren" in basic training it had been re-bored then to 7.62 X 51 mm instead of .303in and had a different flash eliminator. Sights had been changed too. You could actually fire single shots if you wanted it was that smooth. We also used to use the "Bren" Mags on our SLR's but they did have feed issues but it was fun for a "cowboy shoot " on ranges. The MG 42 is really a General purpose MG as opposed to a Light MG.
I was able to squeeze 7 bursts out of a belt with 15 rds. during training with the MG3 we used in German air force. It is in fact quite precise and very accurate. If U taking it apart, the indestines are very well made, grinding, polish, double wire springs etc. despite its cheap apperance...
So yup they dumbed down the bren to .30 bren. Keep it. 303
I have and fired the .303 British and they kicked a bull but at least 30.06 hits better than the. 308
And don't forget the Japanese had a. .303x57 round too
The MG 42 7.92x 57 like the. 303 British
The 11-year model is so good that it must be well maintained. Thank you for taking good care of Japanese guns. It can hardly be seen in Japan.
Thank you!
@@MachineGunMike Next time , do also a video about the Type 96 and the Type 99 Nambu LMGs ^^
@@dincaloooww0372 I don’t own those. One day I hope to get a 99 though.
What a treat for you to review these MGs and provide the firing demos. I learned from this. Thanks!
1Eagle glad you enjoyed it!
Mg42 , the most deverstating gun ever build and one of my top favourits with the Mg34.
MG42, an exercise in area denial.
Maybe we should being it back to enforce social distancing?
Some poor WWII veteran walking pass on his walking stick would be throwing his stick away and running for cover when you fired that MG-42.
that's not cool
Remember, it barks more then it bites....
@@TeppichPilot Even if that is so, at 1200 rounds a minute it still sends shivers down anyone’s spine. I wouldn’t want to be in the direction of its business end for sure. 😱
@@TeppichPilot remember,go ask the fallen soldiers in Normandy.
@@andyhooutdoors he is referring to an old training (more like propaganda) video from the war where the U.S. compares German guns to American guns. When comparing the mg-42 to the 1919 they shoot 50 rounds on a target, and the 1919 gets more hits then the mg-42. After this demonstration they say "remember its bark is worse then its bite"
Also idk if anyone has pointed it out, but the 3-camera set up is a great idea. Now I don't have to rewind to watch it shoot again and I can see it from 3 different angles. I especially like the 3rd camera, cause the sound is so much punchier.
tinman inacan thanks. Special mic on that 3rd one.
The Bren gun reminded me of that scene from lock,stock and two smoking barrels.😁👍🏽
WILL EVERYONE STOP GETTIN SHOT?
For most control you gotta lean into the MG42 while firing. In the Bundeswehr they say, you know you're doing it right, when your shoulder hurts.
You are correct. The sad ting is.....I was leaning into it!. Haha!
Yeah this what was taught in the BW... and it was not bad at all. However the G3 was ofc a much more pleasent and acurate experience to shoot maybe the only thing I miss from the time. Ah also most guys were quite ok even officers I was in the Luftwaffe which was a bit more "relaxed" and technical units
@@MachineGunMike next time, don't turn your legs sideways, the gun has to much recoil. Dig your feet into the ground until you can support your whole body on just your feet and the bipod, whithout your hands touching the gun. That's how it's taught in the German army and it works quite well.
You are right, in the evening youre shoulder is falling off. But what a monster to fire.
Well yeah u gotta push back against the gazillion rounds flying out the end. Hence why it was mounted most times.
Great video. Presentation clear and smooth Sir. Firing of the guns filmed from lots of angles, perfect. Thanks, and peace be unto you.
Bren , A very accurate MG.
Japanese Type 11 looks like a 50s Space gun. That feeding mechanism is very cool, can immediately determine how much ammo is left and feed in increments of 5 rounds.
It is actually nightmare in combat. It’s so easy get stuck.
80 years ago, all these guns were firing at each other in one way or another. The absolute last thing anyone was thinking was that one day some dude would be laying in the sand giving his review on each one for entertainment haha good stuff, man.
I joined the army cadets in1966 aged 13, we trained with Lee Enfield, Sterling SMG and Bren's, we learned how to strip and build Bren's blind fold in rediculousely short time, seconds. At 13 they were so much fun than girls. Happy days and fond memories.
What country?
Hi mg mike, England, peninsula barracks in Warrington.
The Bren gun was a series of light machine guns (LMG) made by Britain in the 1930s and used in various roles until 1992. While best known for its role as the British and Commonwealth forces' primary infantry LMG in World War II, it was also used in the Korean War and saw service throughout the latter half of the 20th century, including the 1982 Falklands War. Although fitted with a bipod, it could also be mounted on a tripod or be vehicle-mounted.
The Bren gun was a licensed version of the Czechoslovak ZGB 33 light machine gun which, in turn, was a modified version of the ZB vz. 26, which British Army officials had tested during a firearms service competition in the 1930s. The later Bren gun featured a distinctive top-mounted curved box magazine, conical flash hider, and quick change barrel. The name Bren was derived from Brno, the Czechoslovak city in Moravia, where the Zb vz. 26 was designed (in the Zbrojovka Brno Factory) and Enfield, site of the British Royal Small Arms Factory. The designer was Václav Holek, a gun inventor and design engineer.
The Bren was used in the Falklands? I didn't know that. In different guise perhaps.
@@philipsquire9056 What I shot in 1968, just re chambered from 0.303in British to 7.62MM NATO otherwise the same gun.
I used the Bren during my time with the NZ Army and also the rare Heavy Barelled SLR which is the equivalent of the B.A.R. I have to tell you that when used in single shot, the Bren is as good as any sniper rifle. All it needed was a scope.
Thanks for the reply.
FN FAL with bipod and 4x scope. That's how you'll get your LMG/SAW and sniper rifle in a single package
@@spdfatomicstructure agreed!!
MG42, Bren gun and BAR my 3 favorite guns from WW2!
Wow ! So many awesome weapons ! The Bren is my favorite.
The Bren is a Canadian version made by Inglis; the company's name and manufacture date -- INGLIS 1942 -- is clearly visible at 1:10. So many of these have been deactivated and so it is really nice to see some in operating order.
Neat watching the hopper descend on the Japanese one - good guide to remaining ammo. Other negative not mentioned re this hopper type is the easy ingress of dirt etc into the gubbins.
Interesting vid, thanks mate. I was in the British army in the 80's and we still used the Bren gun, although it had been renamed the "L.M.G. (Light Machine Gun) didn't feel that light when you had to carry it on a 12 mile yomp....light my arse:-) but it was a good gun and sooo accurate.
The 7.62 GPMG is modelled on the MG42 as it was so effective.
The Bren (LMG) was also used in the 1st Gulf war as the SA80 was prone to jamming in dusty onditions.
Great video 👍🏻
The MG42 is still in use today even after close to 80 years. I wonder how the HK121 procurement is going though
Bren and SA80 were used for totally different jobs. They didnt just hand everybody in the british army a bren instead because SA80s were unreliable at the time
@@Ukraineaissance2014 I'm fully aware having been using the A1, 2 and 3 over the last 20 years. The LMG was a section light weapon, I never once said it replaced the SA80 as a personal weapon system.
Love that bren from the engineering point of view, great comparison, and appreciated.
Excellent segment Mike 👍
Hitlers Buzz Saw MG-42 / 1200 RPM 🙌🏻
It’s ridiculous after a while with 7.92 / 8 mm
It's completely ridiculous. LOL.
A massacre on the omaha with that bad boy
Such a toy collection is very impressive for such a young guy like you! When I win the lottery, these will definitely be items that will be 1st on my list! Thanks for sharing Mike!
The rate of fire on the German MG is impressive.
still holds record, fastest single barrel machine gun
A sequence of shots of up to 1500 rounds per minute already gives a special sound. Only a Gatling is faster
Not if you are the poor guy who has to lug the ammo around.
@@sandemike The ammunition isn't even the worst. In addition to your equipment including the G36, the machine gunner must also carry the MG 3 weighing 11.5 kilograms. The second machine gunner only carries the spare barrel and 2 boxes of ammunition that don't weigh much
Jup, Hitlers buzzsaw....or the zippper. But came to a price with overheating very quick and the amount of ammonition it took was ridicolous..
Fantastic comparison of the different MGs. I think perhaps you might have shown how the MG42's barrels were so easily changed out due to it's rapid fire, quickly overheating them. It was actually said it was difficult to distinguish individual rounds being fired.
Great job. Concise with a “live shoot”.
MG-42 every time! But still love the BAR, especially on slow fire.
Really love the Bren..
Which one would I least like to carry as a soldier. MG42. Which one would I least like to supply. MG42. Which would I least like to change the barrel on. BAR (because you can't). Which looks the worst to reload - The Japanese one. Having fired three out of the 4 I prefer the BREN out of all of them. Interesting to note, whilst the British Army shifted to FN MAG's and then to the Minimi, the Royal Marines still used the BREN for arctic warfare up to the late 80's as it was also very reliable in the cold (rechambered to 7.62).
The MG 42 renamed MG3 is still in service, but I'm terms of longevity the BREN isn't far behind it. I believe the Indian army also used it for decades after it was shifts out of British Army standard issue.
Yeah there are pictures of the Indian Army using the BREN(chambered in 7.62 NATO) to this day at high altitude posts on the Pakistan and China border. They purchased the Negev(around 10000) to replace them but there is still more than 30000 of them in service to this day.
The 7.62 LMG ( rechambered version of the Bren) was also used by rear echelon and support units (Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery) used them in the first Gulf War in 1990.
But of the four, only the MG42 has endured in service with its parent nation until today. The BAR did have a long service life too but has since been phased out
Thanks again for the excellent educational and historical content. Very good firearms safety techniques displayed as well.
lamonstra thanks. It’s all habit for me.
Another fantastic video! Your presentation is excellent Mike. This is the first time I have seen a type 11. Wow, what a unique system of loading! I really enjoyed seeing this batch of classic machine guns in action. Thanks very much Machine Gun Mike!!
gunnerjames105 thank you for the post! I’m glad you enjoy the video.
"The type 11 might have a bad rep. But there are a lot of dead enemies of Japan that can witness to how effective it was".... I believe that was a quote from a ww2 marine veteran. Also commenting on the type 92
There was also the Japanese heavy MG w/ quite low ROF, nicknamed the woodpecker. However it was quite acurate and reliable...
People don't seem to realize that Japan's main focus was China. Their outdated equipment was perfectly adequate for the war they wanted to fight, but not the war they ended up getting.
@@jimjamauto the type 11 was brought into service in 1922. Of course it wasn't adequate for WW2. But it didn't have to be. Because it was replaced by the type 96 machine gun, the type 97 machine gun and eventually the type 99 machine gun, that were fundamentally different from the type 11.
@@iexist.imnotjoking5700 I'm just saying that people usually wonder why Japan relied on mostly obsolete equipment in general, and it's because they didn't expect a long fight with the US. Their gear was good enough for conquering Asia, not good enough for fighting the US.
@@jimjamauto But they didn't rely on obsolete equipment. A lot of it entered circulation again around 1944/45 but I don't think there was ever a point at which they relied on obsolete equipment. The only example I can think of are the Japanese tanks.
As you fire these. All I can think about is the money just coming out of the barrel. Thank you for all the videos you upload.
must cost a fortune!
At my time in the German Bundeswehr i had a MG3 thats the follow MG of the MG42 but with less RPM to allow the Barrel to hold longer....i remember the funny Barrel change when the actual barrel is too hot from shooting, put it in the Gras next to my position and the Gras started to burn right away with lot smoke🤣
And the funny top cover popping up sometimes ,and me hammering my fist on it to get it down🤣
Thanks for the story! Always interesting to hear.
The backup barrel is in a flip open container so it is supposed to put the hot barrel into it and than flip the cold one into the MG. Putting it into the grass was not a smart move and would cost U a box of beer in the GAF...
MG 42 absolute beast of a machine gun.
Everyone:RATATATAT
Germany:PRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Hitlers Buzz’s saw .
Bren a beast worked for the british army in many wars and for over 80-90 years and you could conserve ammunition well.as well as that, it was easy to make and was by ww2 standards pretty light
The BAR and the BREN are one type of weapon and the MG42 and Type 11 are meant for a completely different role. The first two are LMG's which could be used from a standing or prone position for both suppressive fire as well as more precision fire. The latter two were meant to be fired prone or from an emplacement, for suppression or for mowing down a large amount charging enemies at medium to close range. As an LMG, I would say the BREN takes the cake; it's better built, more reliable and more accurate than the BAR. When it comes to the MMG's nothing can really beat the MG42. The Japanese concept was pretty unusual and it worked just fine in the Asian theatre but I would say it is still outclassed by Hitlers buzzsaw for the most part.
Love your vids because there’s no BS. You just jump right in, give a nice brief overview, and get right to shooting. I smashed sub!
Thanks man
Great video Mike.
On the older guns you can really see the early development/evolution of machine guns that influenced by tactics at the time.
gunhappyie yep! It’s awesome to see.
Awesome video! To get in so much relevant info on those four guns in just 15 min!
Thanks
Thanks for putting this video together. I’m partial to the MG-42, in fact I think it’s still probably a viable piece of weaponry.
It certainly is. The MG3, which is essentially just a slightly modified MG42 chambered in 7.62x51mm, is still fielded by many armies around the world to this day. Ranging from primary infantry machine gun to vehicle mounted, like on the Leopard 2 MBT for example.
TheBigOne0305
Interesting, I’m not familiar with that platform. I’ll look it up, I bet it’s nice.
Again a very impressive collection of classics, and interesting to directly compare.
The Bren we used showed when & where is was made, ROFE 1943 for example. Royal Ordinance Factory Enfield. The original caliber .303 had 2 lines grooved into the metal crossing it out & the new caliber 7.62 was written into the metal. Another note related to the Bren, the British army switched main combat rifles from 0.303 British to the Belgian FN, British designation SLR 7.62 NATO around 1958. It held a 20 round magazine. The Bren had the curved magazine, I think it held 28 rounds if I remember or maybe 30. The 20 round magazine for the main combat fitted the Bren.
We used both the FN SLR and 7.62 Bren in the Australian Army, the Bren was much loved as it never suffered the stoppages of the M60 GPMG.
@@ardshielcomplex8917 Just the barrels got hot & you had to change them! The glorious Gloucesters peed on them during a battle against a big force of North Korean & Chinese soldiers in Korea in the early 50's.
30 odd years ago, the Australian Armoured Corps used Leopard tanks, and I guess they came with Mg-3's. Our M113's used .30 and .50 cal Browning mg's, so I was trained to use all of them. The .50 cal is a beast, but a lot of fun to fire. Neither Browning had any sights as they'd proven useless due to vibration, it was a matter of pointing the barrel at the target and then firing short bursts and following the tracers until the target was hit. The Mg-3 was a different story. The sights on those work perfectly. The first target called out to me was 500-600 metres distant. My first burst was dead on target. Compared to the .50 cal, or even the .30 cal, I didn't notice the recoil at all.
Thanks for the story
@@MachineGunMike As you'd know, the Mg-3 was developed from the Mg-42. I've never fired the earlier weapon, but out of all the different weapons I got to fire, the Mg-3 was my favourite.
I saw your comparison of WW2 sub-machineguns, but you missed the best of them, the Owen gun. If you can lay hands on one it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts, compared to the others you've reviewed.
@@andrewstrongman305 I don’t own one and they are non existent here unfortunately.
@@MachineGunMike Ian from Forgotten weapons reviewed one, but I think it was part of the Smithsonian, or a similar collection.
I've used the Owen gun's successor, the F1. Perhaps they are more readily available in the US?
1:41 I bet you're real proud of that slick transition :)
TheGoldenCaulk lol. Such a skilled cameraman! 😂
The BAR was from a different age, time and place. My wife’s uncle was a US Marine BAR man in the pacific and told us he loved the weapon.
Good show
When the German army requested a new MG, besides wanting something easier to make and supply to a lot of troops (effectively one per every squad of 10), they specifically mentioned WW1 experiences. Slower-firing MGs could sweep across an area with advancing troops and still miss some, "between the bullets" so to speak. This is why they had the higher rate of fire on the MG42.
A few things I picked up from having read one of the US military's studies of what made the German army able to do so much with, relatively, so little:
The Wehrmacht's doctrine was not rifle-centric like many of the allies, where the MG was considered a "support" tool, but MG-centric. The MG was central to every squad of 10 or so men (literally, as well as metaphorically) and the tactics revolved around the MG. This means the gunner was usually well trained, did not waste ammo unnecessarily, and was well-supported by the squad. In practice, every soldier also tended to help carry ammo for it, since it was such a vital part of the German military.
The typical engagement was something like this: at first sign of enemy contact, everyone hits the dirt. The MG is (ideally still) in the center of the squad, next to the squad leader. Suppression commences, while the squad leader directs the flanks to maneuver to the side of the enemy and close in. Rifle flanks and MG leapfrog forward, if necessary, covering each other. Finally, offensive grenades (high explosive, low frag) are used when at close enough range to storm the enemy position, killing or stunning any enemies just before breaching.
Obviously if the enemy is spotted first, the MG42's massive first burst capability was a huge asset in ensuring as many of the enemy are taken down as possible before they hit the ground - basically like a shotgun spray.
This seems intuitive and even basic, but as I understand, this differed from US squad tactics going into the war, in that the latter were a little more cumbersome, with forward scout elements and the support weapons at the rear, often times leaving the squad leader at odds trying to coordinate the two.
Bar my favorite.i was a bar gunner during my time as a 6 year old in the backyard wars.
The MG-42 is the best for his high accuracy and rate of fire and it is still in use today renamed for MG-3 but using the 7,62x51mm instead the original 7,92x57mm ammo.
The Bren is the second best and a very versatile machine gun.
And the third place goes to the BAR because of his powerful 30.06 ammo and despite his low capacity it had a huge vantage over the japanese Type 11 because this gun is a nightmare to reloading.
I would agree with that both the MG42 and Bren were rechambered for 7.62. The disadvantage of the former being the opposite disadvantage of the later although as a LMG I always prefered the LMG(Bren) over the FN MAG which was developed from the MG42 albeit with a slower rate of fire and belt feed.
Comparing the mg42 to the bar and bren, seems illogical. Belt fed to box fed, shows the difference in purpose, at least at the time.
The Bren gun is the best of the bunch. It's the one I would feel the most comfortable to carry into combat.
I think I agree with you as well.
@@MachineGunMike I love your videos. Subscribed today. Keep them coming 😊👍
My father used one in the 1940s. He loved it. Said it was great to handle and very accurate for long range fire.
An advantage, particularly over the BAR, was the quick change barrel. This made it machine gun, rather than the BAR which was actually an overweight automatic rifle.
@@alecblunden8615 yep the BAR was a rifle that was designed during WW1 so it was showing its age in WW2. The gun was designed for a tactic called walking fire where American dough boys would shoot the gun while crossing no man's land to get to the Germans trenches. It didn't come with a bi pod back then but was supposed to be fired from the hip in semiautomatic mode. When you got to enemy trenches you were yo switch to full automatic. The 20 round magazines were seen as good enough for the role intended but the Americans never used it for walking fire because they realized it wasn't a go idea. Instead it was forced into the role of the Lewis gun which it's design was never intended for. In all reality the gun wasn't a very good squad automatic but that's what the American military had and never replaced it until the M60 came out.
Another nice thing about the BREN is the easy cleanup. Since all the rounds get pooped out right below the receiver in a nice little pile.
I trained a lot on the later version of the Bren we called the LMG in the British army, chambered in 7.62 NATO. It was an excellent weapon, almost too accurate to be a good LMG!
the type 11 seems like a pain in the ass to load in battle
It is
With a different magazine design Type 11 machine gun would have been a much more effective squad weapon. A snail type magazine with 50 rounds, although heavier would have given it an advantage over the BAR & BREN.
As employed in actual service, only one of these was a true machine gun, the MG42. The rest were more accurately described as automatic rifles. I get that the distinction seems pretty thin, and may only matter in doctrinal terms. But the automatic rifle was not really intended for sustained automatic fire, as the belt fed machine guns were. They were intended as a base-of-fire weapon for an infantry squad.
The Bren is very definately a light machine gun. It has a rapid changeable barrel, rapid magazine change especially with a number two, fittings for a tripod, but even on the bipod very capable of sustained fire. Given how quickly the mg42 could overheat the Bren would certainly be as capable of sustained fire. Also vehicle mounted as a machine gun on the universal carrier, amongst others. The Bar and type 11 are certainly automatic rifles, the Bren both technically and doctrinally a light machine gun.
The Bren light machine gun and and FN FAL rifle are not even close, either mechanically (no barrel change) or doctrinally. It' was employed as a crew served section level light machine gun with a number two and the rest of the section typically also carrying spare magazines for it. In later British service the GPMG (FN MAG) , LMG (Bren) and SLR (FN FAL) all had their distinct roles. You might have used the GPMG but clearly never used the Bren if you think it's anything like the SLR.
So this is where you are misunstanding this then. The Bren has a top loaded 30 round magazine firing from an open bolt. This makes magazine changes incredably smooth, either solo but especially with a number two. The rapid change barrel and 30 round top loaded box are fundamentally different propositions to the typical bottom fed rifle box mag on the BAR and FN FAL.it's not a trivial difference in operation. Neither of the later able to be tripod or vehicle mounted like the Bren either. You don't have to be belt fed to achieve sustained automatic fire, the hotchkiss or type 92 being other examples.
FN FAL is nothing like the Bren. But maybe everybody that has ever used one and classified it as an LMG is wrong and maybe somehow you are right and it is a automatic rifle.... You have to know the odds are against you though. Good luck. Out.
I've used all 3 over many years. Nobody at any point is saying the FN MAG is the same as the Bren so let's just disregard that as done. The point in question is also the SLR and the Bren are fundamentally different too and only one of them is an automatic rifle. There that was easy wasn't it?
I hate to point out the obvious, especially as much as I love the BAR, but the mg42 is belt fed and has a ludicrous rate of fire, which in my opinion, makes it better than the rest.
Depends. It's really much harder to hit shit whit then the other 2. But then again that is not the point. The point is to keep the enemy supressed so you single shot buddies can aim an finish them off. The other two are much more accurate and are more of a threat. As a defencive weapon the mg 49 excels but the other to migh be a little better on the move.
@@scheikundeiscool4086 "mg 42 or 34"
@@scheikundeiscool4086 not 49
Great video. Just got a chance to blast a MG42 last week for the first time. Awesome gun.
I like the bar slow fire mode, it's amazing
Great video. Nice to see them all run side by side. Only thing missing is a Soviet DP
Excellent idea to compare the models side by side. Thanks MGM! Your awsome.
Big problem with the MG42 is feeding it! It eats ammunition so fast! I liked the BREN and loved shooting it. However, I test fired the Russian belt fed PK and loved it. Similar rate of fire to the BREN but the advantage of belt fed. Sure, it was not as well machined, but it worked and was very reliable. Sadly, I had to relegate my BREN to number two on my list. However, of the Heavies, I loved the Vickers MG. That MG fired all day long. There is a report of one in Tobruk which fired non-stop for 7 days!!!!!!!!!!! this prevented the Germans taking Tobruk.
In WWI a Vickers put down 1,000,000 rounds and was still in useable condition.
My great uncle was a pioneer during WWII. According to him it was no issue as you had six other guys loading new belts. It was after two or three days of near constant firing at Russian charges that they finally ran out of ammunition. You didn’t care if you had ammo for tomorrow. That was an issue for tomorrow. The charging soldiers were an issue for today. When you need to relocate and fire constantly which would you prefer? 150 round belts, 20 or 30 box mags, or a massive MG that can fire for days but is difficult to move?
The mg42 could be used as a light machine-gun using the bipod, but also could be used as a heavy machine-gun in a defense position using the tripod. I would like to see a trial with the other machine-guns in both situations.
How terrifying for allied troops having to face the germans with the mg42
They nicknamed them Hitlers buzzsaws
Nasty, but the US had M2 Brownings all over the place.
It was deadly on d-day. A lot of Americans were killed thanks to the mg42. Also the sad part before it was that US training were also really not accurate against the real mg42, the higher ups wanted soldiers to not fear the it. Unfortunately it in turn caused a lot of lives
@@AK-forty-seven It's a pretty solid machine gun even by modern standards, but it wasn't enough.
@Ming Yang the M1 Garand was a spendid semi-automatic rifle, but the "game changer" was the SCR-300 portable radio transceiver. Every platoon had one and its was useful to call artillery or mortar suport to deal with a entreched MG42
A gun shop in the area has an educational Bren all opened up to observe the mechanics. Great video 🥇🏆
wayne daley that’s awesome! Where at?
Victoria BC Canada 🇨🇦
I had the opportunity to use the MG 42 in the Italian army, in the MG42 / 59 variant, an excellent weapon, although I believe the original model, perhaps slightly better, has a higher firing rate, a lower weight of 2 kg (it is not a little ! carry it on your shoulder on mountain trails then we discuss it ^^) compared to MG42 / 59, but, do you really need 1200 shots / minute against infantry? in addition, the quick barrel change system in the MG42 / 59 is better.
the BREN is excellent, extremely precise, indestructible and reliable, the Bar is penalized by the magazine of only 20 rounds, the Type 11 has suffered oblivion due to the worse age of the bar, moreover, like the bad Breda Mod 30, its hopper loader collected dust, debris and mud during the cycle, a problem aggravated (again as in the Breda 30) by the oiler. Personally I believe that BREN, BAR, Type 11 belong to the category defined in Italian, rifle-submachine guns; while the MG42 than that of the light machine guns, closer, for example, to Brow. M1919, which in BAR
Thanks!
The German infantry doctrine called for burst firing, so the 1200 rpm was never intended for sustain firing. In fact, doing so would over heat and burnout the barrel. As for "do you really need 1200 shots/minute against infantry". Not for stationary targets. But, yes, you do if they are running from cover to cover and are only exposed for 1-2 seconds which means the MG42 gunner loses about 1/2 second to react, aim, and fire a burst from his gun at a moving target.
My dad started out in Normandy as a BAR gunner. As such his job was to pin down the enemy while the rest of the unit maneuvered or flanked the enemy. But after a week or so he told me he realized this job was better done with a Browning 1919 mg or with accurate rapid fire from a M1 rifle. He said the BAR always ran out of ammo too fast. The gunner and assistant gunners could not carry enough mags to keep it running for very long. It sounded to me like the mags were to bulky and added to much to the total weight. In short the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages.
PS: His opinion may have been colored by the fact he was captured near St Lo because he ran out of ammo and got knocked silly by a German grenade while trying to find ammo. Luckily he managed to escape during a counter attack by his battalion. But he got beat up pretty bad by the SS before that happened.
Mg42 is❤❤❤❤
Until you run out of ammo, because it wastes A LOT.
Someone has to carry the ammo.
A fast rate of fire is a logistics and weight nightmare.
You need proper training and discipline in order to use the MG42 correctly. The salvos should be clipped to 4 - 5 bullets. The ammo consumption can be controlled.
"It uses too many bullets"
Said no soldier ever.
Excellent video. I sincerely appreciate the efforts. Job well done. As you mentioned this is only "an over sampling". You could spend a lot of time on the ins and outs of each LMG, but just seeing them in action is a great start. FYI: the Bren is a derivative of the ZB26, as you mentioned, but it is certainly of the same era as the BAR (BAR 1918, ZB26 1924). The Type 11 is also of the early 1920's. All three have the milled receiver while the newer MG42 has the stamped (as you mentioned). Of further note: the BAR was designed as a "heavy rifle" to supplement infantry armed with bolt action Springfield 1903's (no quick change barrel, only 20 round mag, and essentially the first SAW), while the ZB26, Bren, and Type 11 were all designed as LMG's from the beginning). The BAR served as a SAW in WW2 far more than in the LMG support role. The US's MMG M1919Ax served in the LMG role most often. The MG42 as we know was designed as a GPMG to be able to perform the roles of LMG, HMG, vehicle mounted MG, and more and it preformed them all very well (it's biggest detractor being its big appetite for ammo).
Thanks again, I'll be watching! :)
Thanks
Mg42 was and still is the best MG in the world to this day💯
My father was in WWII and carried the BAR, he swore by the gun, never at the gun. Every conversation we ever had concerning the BAR was how reliable it was, it would shoot no matter what the conditions were.
That’s awesome to hear. Thank you.
The mg42 was a work of genius. 1000rpm was an amazing feat! German engineers were so far ahead of that time.
It was a higher rpm to begin with but was lowered. Thats brilliant in it's self but the genius for me is the quick change barrel, flick the catch out and slide it out, slide new one in.
MG42 ~1500 rpm
MG3 ~ 1200 rpm
German thought and rationale too. Which we see in post WW2 history. Peace be unto you..
That was fun!!! Demonstrating the abilities and the difference between those machine guns shows the contrasting philosophies of their respective designers. One of the most extreme being the BAR compared to the MG-42 since the BAR design was so old using all machined parts, and the MG-42, which incorporated newer manufacturing concepts like using stamped metal parts wherever possible. Look at the AK47, though not included in this comparison but that weapon is one of the best examples of this solution to the problem of making guns quicker, cheaper and using much lower tolerances. I would’ve also liked to have you include the Browning.30 cal in this comparison since it also used quite a bit of stamped metal parts.
Hickok45 mentioned you in a video... that's what brought me here. Also, I like the older guns you talk about and shoot.
Thanks man!
Clyde Barrow had a couple BAR's big reason for his shootout survival. Great video!
What would be cool... is to do a video with your go pro about 200 yards down range and send a few mags/belts near it to give perspective of what they sounded like on the receiving end
Fired the Bren many times as an army school cadet. Even as young teenagers we were allowed to have that experience because it was considered to be safe and reliable and we had good regular army instructors. The stripping procedure is still burned in my brain....piston, barrel, butt, body, bipod.
My late father in law was a Feldwebel in the Wehrmacht & in charge of a 3 man section armed with the MG34. He used to tell me how when fighting in Russia setting up the 3 weapons to cross fire was very effective. A pair of them could also be mounted on a stand for anti aircraft use, although not particularly effective. He at least had the opportunity of letting fly at some passing Polikarpov I-5s. He was eventually taken POW in North Africa and never saw the introduction of the MG-42.
Apparently the sound of the MG 42 had a disheartening affect on Allied troops. They'd hear it and go to ground. Also the BAR was a seriously long lived weapon - it was produced in 1918... AND it actually saw service in WW1. So it saw service in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam.
Who carried all the bullets for it?