As an Australian Armoured Corps soldier, I was first trained to use the Browning .30 and .50 cal machineguns. I was also trained to use the Mg 3, which was by far the best weapon I've ever used. We weren't given any special instructions - we already knew to fire in short bursts, both to keep the barrel cool and to conserve ammo. There is no need for long bursts anyway, the Mg 3 is incredibly accurate.
I am a Serb from Bosnia and Herzegovina and I have had the opportunity to shoot the Yugoslavian PKM and the Yugoslavian MG-43 (M-53) and I have always been fascinated by the MG-43.
I gotta ask since you have real experience with that fine weapon.. Is it really as laser beam accurate as they portray it in some sims? Also, how is the recoil? Lastly, in your experience compares to the .30 and .50 is she easier to maintenance and clean or does not get gummed up as quicky at all? Just curious.
@@Daniel-jq4qk I'll never forget the first time I squeezed off a burst from the Mg 3. My target was a small bunker on a slope, about 600m away. Every round was on target. With the Browning's, you have to 'walk' your fire onto the target, the Mg 3 is just point and shoot. I don't remember it having much recoil - certainly negligible compared to the .50 cal! As for maintenance, the Mg 3 is more precisely engineered, but it it's very user friendly. I never experienced a jam. The .30 and .50 cal Browning guns are pigs. They are both difficult to clean (I should know as I once had to unpack 'new' guns from their crates and remove the grease they'd been covered with decades before I had to clean them). The .30 cal is prone to jamming, and if it's mounted in an M113 turret it's a bastard to clear. The .50 cal is large enough that the mechanism rarely jams. The .30 cal has bad recoil, the .50 cal's recoil is much stronger but as they are always on a heavy tripod if not mounted to a vehicle, they are quite easy to control. I hope that answers your questions, mate. Thank you for asking, answering you brought back memories of some of the best experiences I've had.
I was a machine gunner in the German Army, the MG3 is wonderful to use and everyone knows how dangerous it is. But you have to say that it's a nuisance to walk through the woods for miles with it. After several hours you have tried every possible carrying method at least once and cursed every single kilogram. Even when cleaning you have a lot of time to invent new curses. Still, I loved every single shot with it and I highly recommend not being on the wrong side.
Yes, agree totally! Shooting these short bursts were at first a challenge for me, as the rounds went too far up and left. I had to tame that beast. But then it was really cool
Plus a few more curses especially dedicated to your instructor in basic training. Any time there was anything remotely resembling mud you heard the call "Fliegeralarm" and knew it would add another 30 minutes to the cleaning procedure :)
Lmao Germans are so funny, your armed forces have seen limited engagements usually when helping out the Americans or in the north of Afghanistan and as of right now you've lost a total of like 30 dudes in the war on terror, you pay for practically nothing in NATO your country has successfully owned Europe now for 40 years with the creation of the EU but sure bud don't wanna be on the wrong side of a 60 year old machine gun I'm sure towel heads would love to get their hands on one of those after they suicide bomb your buddies or actually from what I've read here a majority of German army fatalities have been from ineptitude around explosives or suicide from the stress of being made into a functional army again
I was an M60 gunner on and off with the 7th ID (LIGHT) and in Germany 2AD (FWD), during the mid-'80s. I thought the M60 was a pretty good MG, it needed some TLC but still good MG. Thenl I got to fire the MG3, the M60 was never the same for me after that.
Denmark have since 2014 replaced the the LMG M/62s (as it is called in danish service) with the M60E6... it should be noted that the E6 is a rather different gun than earlier versions.
I've often wondered how the 60 stacked up against the MG3. I was national guard so getting exposure to foreign weapons was never a thing. We didn't even get 60's added to our MTOE (I was in maintenance companies most of my career) until the early 90's and we only had them for about 6 years before turning them in and getting M249's.
In Yugoslav army MG 42 known as Zastava M 53 in original 8mm version was a main machine gun up to the 1975-80 after was replaced with yugo version of PKM known as Zastava M 84
Another reason why the Germans opted to use the MG42 backbone instead of making a new MG from scratch was because there where still a lot of MG42's in warehouses (mostly in other countries), so they made conversion kits for them to be able to fit NATO rounds. If im not mistake there are still MG3's that where originally MG42's from WW2 still in service.
@@fuhlfur3061 No, wartime 7.92×57mm Mauser chambered MG 42 machine guns that remained in service were converted to the standard 7.62×51mm NATO chambering and designated MG 2
It's possible but unlikely. The MG1s and MG2s were all brought up to the same standard as the MG3, but as others here are pointing out, the weapon is being phased out slowly. So, good bet that the oldest guns were the first to go.
I'm not german, but our MG74's are also conversions of the 42. (the devellopment for our conversionswas was done by Beretta and Steyr. Our decision makers opted for a heavier bolt, stiffer spring and thus way lower rate of fire of around 750 rpm). During my conscript time 99/00 one of the MG's we got trained on, either had the feed cover (top cover?) or the housing of an original 42. Under the right light conditions and correct angle, the formerly stamped in 42 that had been sanded off at the conversion was still a bit visible. (But after 23 years i don't remember if it was the top cover or the the housing.) I mean there are parts that don't really wear much, and if they are kept from rusting, no problem to use them further. Things like the cocking handle, housing, grip and feed cover easily can last that long if they don't get damaged. It's clear that no one would find orignal 42 springs, barrels and bolt heads in MG3's as they are part of the conversion anyways, or consumable items that wear out like rollers, barrel bushings and again: springs. Or bipods that get broken by soliders in use on rare occasions. Maybe the recoil booster could also be reused as the gas pressures of both rounds are similiar. (i would argue that from 8mm Mauser to 7,62 you won't be reboring barrels. The NATO round is shorter and has a smaller bullet diameter. To make such a barrel work, you would need to bore it out way further and insert a "liner" then cut new lands and grooves into that liner. And before that: weld in some material into the chamber and drill/ream it out again to fit the new casing proportions. That is something that gets done occasionally for bolt action guns, but for a MG barrel? Cheaper and easier to make new barrels in the right caliber. Also, during wartime use, the barrel changes for sure weren't done every 150-200 rounds, so the existing 42 barrels would be k.o. anyways.) Additional "fun fact":Among 10, 20 and 30 year old jerrycans (they all had their year of production stamped into the sides), we also found one stamped 1944 when stacking cans for an oncomming exercise. In good general shape with only a little bit of surface rust on one edge. It was still in normal use for Diesel. (for 56 years by that time)
@@fuhlfur3061 According to the Bundeswehr, the phasing out of the MG3 started around 5 years ago. Clearly there have been converted 42s in use while the MG5 was developed, but I too believe they are now already sold to private owners / other armies.
I spent plenty of time using the MG-3 as a Leopard Gunner in 1st Armoured Regiment and School of Armour in the Aussie Army. It is truly a magnificent weapon. Easy to use, even easier to maintain, and barrel swaps are extremely quick. Not to mention that stoppages are very rare. I've used M-60, L1A2 ( SLR LMG ), M240, Bren, M249, and both Browning M1919 in 7.62, and of course the 50 cal. And the MG-3 was by far the best of the lot. BY FAR!. I even remember my first time using it out on Puckapunyal Range as a 19 y.o. It was the best day!. Really sad when we went from Leopard to Abrams. The only other weapons I enjoyed almost as much were the 76mm Cannon on the MRV, and the 25mm Chain Gun on the LAV-25.
Thats so awesome, I really hope I get a chance to fire one before I die although odds are I wont lol. You actually answered one of my questions to another Aussie counterpart of yours that has experience with the weapon. I was curious how well she maintained how the cleaning and gunk build up was. By the sounds of it though as you said easy to maintain clearly verry tough* even in Austalia's harsher environments.
Unfortunately, I never got the chance to use most of those weapons. The F1 SMG was fun to use, easy to clean, and never jammed. I also got to use the Carl Gustave, which was amazing. Recent variants have proven very effective in Ukrainian hands.
@@andrewstrongman305 When were you in? and what Unit?. If you used 84 - were you an Assault Tpr?. Yep F1 was fun with live rounds - simple to clean with the literal 3 parts!!!! LOL.
@@Daniel-jq4qk it was pretty simple to maintain and clean - no more fiddly than any other MG. We used it in Puckapunyal which is North of Melbourne, Victoria where it is a rural area and in Summer it does get hot, but the conditions are not bad. It doesn't get real dusty and humid. But rain and mud could be a problem at times. Now that most Armour has moved up to Northern parts of Australia, the conditions are way worse. Darwin is absolutely horrendous. 6 months of the year it is Hot AF and super humid, and then the other 6 months are hot and dry and very dusty. Nice place Darwin, but the weather sucks balls - the big base is near Palmerston, about 20 mins South of Darwin. It is really nice with excellent amenities and barracks. The state and region are excellent for fishing/hunting and 4x4ing/camping, but extremely remote from any other city. You either love it or hate it. The nightlife for meeting chicks is excellent, and Darwin has great places to eat and experience great multi cultural society.
Still, the MG 34 stayed in production until the end of WWII due to the quick-change barrel mechanism for use in the fighting compartment of tanks and other such armored fighting vehicals.
@@D.R658 That was the point. Most German tanks were developed with the MG 34 as the standard on board weapon. In order to go over to the MG 42, the gun port on the tanks would have had to be redesigned. Easier to keep the 34 in production.
But time consuming and expensive to manufacture. The firearms equivalent of a fire hose does not need to be all that complicated or expensive it just needs to work. A predictable beaten zone at X distance with features added to deal with the heat production.
@@D.R658 The method of barrel change made the MG 42 unsuitable for internal secondary or co-axial armament on World War II era German tanks or other armored vehicles with the exception of the Jagdpanzer IV. Early versions of the Jagdpanzer IV carried two standard (no modification made) MG 42s on both sides of the main gun mantlet/glacis, firing through a firing port which was protected by an armored cover plate (with the MG 42 retracted) when not in use. Later version Jagdpanzer IVs carried only one MG 42 as internal secondary armament.
I wouldn't be surprised if the MG-3 still remains in some form of service 100 years after it was first introduced. Some developments simply cannot be further improved.
@@mandernachluca3774 Why does firing a heavier caliber make it not count? It was widely used against infantry, light vehicles, light static defenses, and low-flying aircraft on the ground. Still is, too.
@@crowe6961 The question is not what the gun is used against, it's a question what the gun is used with. In particular in an infantry role without a fixed mount (= only bipod). That's the definition of a light machine gun. The moment you mount it fixed it's a heavy machine gun. A particular model used in both cases is a universal machine gun. For comparison out of US inventory: M60 was universal.
MG42 was truly a game changer, but I think the Browning M2 takes the cake for most successful. It has stood the test of time and beyond. It is a gun that is hard to even replace.
The most durable and long-lasting machines are always based on the Keep It Simple principle. Both work on blowback, not gas operation, and use a minimum of parts. Simple and effective. No computers, no complicated mechanical systems, nothing to plug up or jamb. As Scotty said one time,”The more they engineer the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.”
Not to mention the versatility of the M2. It's been on pretty much every type of vehicle in the U.S. military from planes to tanks, ships, trucks, APC's etc etc.. We're still equipping a weapon developed in the 1930's on to remote weapons stations with state of the art optics and thermals. We've even continued to develop new advanced ammunition for this weapon such as the raufoss (anti material, anti armor) round and the SLAP (saboted light armor penetrator) round. Just look at the wikipedia pages of both weapons and look at how many countries each weapon is in use in. There's just no comparison, the M2 Browning by far has been the most successful machine gun in the world.
@@ssaraccoii not particularly true. By that logic the 737 wouldn't have outlasted the DC-3. Engineering is a balancing act of many components. But just ask the Russians how much fun they are doing trying to counter the complicated HIMARS with 'simple and reliable' tube artillery
That must have been an amazing experience. Some 25 years ago my friend at a military shooting contest down in Germany managed with an old MG42 to hit bullseye with a "burst" of a single shot (that's holding the trigger for a mere 1/20 of a second). What's perhaps more special is that he was never in the military himself (his friend was former soldier an machine gun expert, but he wasn't the one to do this shot). It was some NATO competition, and the participating countries chose their own way of selecting their participants; some had selective competitions at home, others selected in other ways. My two friends got invited sort of "unofficially" since they were not in the military, yet they participated for several years. And my "not-ever--military" friend did this amazing shot. His other ex-soldiers friend won the overall machine gun competition the same year.
Also a good thing: Once you are used to handling it will never go away, like driving a bicycle. I had not used it for over 20 years but recently I did it again and I still had the muscle memory and knew exactly how to react to the recoil, to a misfire etc. This Lady is so intuitive in its handling.
During my armytime in Germany in the early 90s I loved to fire the MG3 - what a feeling!!! Such a great weapon. It never jammed and was so easy to handle - cleaning, maintenance, barrel change…
The thing about the M2 is. I simply cannot understand why it's got such a wide adoption.. It's extremely heavy for it's caliber making it not ideal for aircraft use... Jet it was... It's even heavier for infantrymen to carry around because you need the fucking stand...🙈 Still got adopted. And it's not even verry precise nor has a particular good cycle time... 🙈 Fascinating isn't it?
@@justacomment1657 Firstly, America. Secondly, it's more of a heavy machine gun, you don't carry it, you mount it. .50 cal is a really nice caliber for punching through armor, buildings, aircraft, whatever, and it can carry a wide variety of payloads without becoming a cannon. Russia uses a 14mm gun for similar reasons. The gun also just *works*, and when they don't, it doesn't take too much to make them work again.
@@justacomment1657 The M2 is simple to produce, reliable, and packs enough punch to pierce thick concrete walls and lightly armored vehicles. It doesn't need to be particularly light because it's mostly mounted on vehicles rather than carried around anyways. It also had the benefit of a universal receiver, which meant it could easily be swapped out for different setups. That's not such a big deal anymore, but it was a significant part of its original adoption during WWII. It's not meant to be some expensive perfect super weapon. It's meant to be something powerful and reliable that can be produced en masse and tacked onto anything and everything. Also "And it's not even very precise". You do realize that the M2 browning held most of the top ten long distance sniping records from Vietnam until the 2000s, right?
In Austria it's the other way around. We run MG74s license made by Steyr but have MAGs on our Leos. I guess something was mixed up with the stamps in the post office when our countries ordered their Leos ;)
same in Denmark since 2014 the LMG M/62s have been replaced by M60E6... With the exception of the mgs on Leopard 2s and the different recovery and engineering tanks.
In Portugal we also use the MG3 on L2A6 (2x) - the Leo is now entering a modernization stage, not sure if the MG3 will be phased out or also set in a modernized system, but also on other vehicles, not only the Leopard, like some of the 8x8 Pandur II ICV/RWS versions alonside with Browning M2HB, some older HMMWV
I always liked very much the MG 42 but also the very high quality MG 34 and the MG 3 that said when I was doing compulsory military service in Italy, I'm Italian, I had the great fortune to shoot all three of them in 1968 as the warehouses was well stockpiled with 2nd WW guns. Great fun! I could hear and feel the difference compared to the MG 42 but not much. It was was quite heavy to handle both the guns and the ammo trough...
Sir what was then your army's manual when firing in woodland,, forrested/bush areas wherein the enemies can be closer and dispersed. Is short bursts still mandatory at that time?
@@neiljasonvillanueva1864 generally we were only shooting short burst as well stated in the manual translated from German. In my time we had a core of veterans training us in my barracks giving very useful tips!!
When I was in the Bundeswehr some of our training MG3 and one of the first I ever held in my hands had a german eagle and swastika on it but the symbols were scratched off. Still.....you could clearly see what it once was. What an awesome gun.
I have fired both, mG42 and mg3 honestly the 8mm is only different in its higher rate of fire, the way the barrel changess is better than the m60 or the m240, it slides out with gravity and you can easily change it prone, with your head down and a much lower silouette
In the Swiss Army we had the M51 which traces back directly to the German products of WW2, replaced by the Minimi in the infantry, still used on vehicles and tanks.
I remember playing brothers in arms on my grandparents computer after getting it on Christmas. What I didn’t know was my uncle heard the MG42 fire from a distance in game while napping in the lazy boy and I also didn’t know at the time he landed with the 29th infantry on Omaha. He heard that through the speakers and hit the deck. The funny thing was he wanted to try the game out after hearing the ruckus and was a badass at the game. Me and him would play the coop missions together. Leave it to someone who fought the actual war to love a video game portraying it and have the tactical ability at his age to slay it. He really liked the tactical part of it. It was when EIB dropped.
The MG3 is really good, especially the setback is not too strong despite 7. 62mm, so you can always stay on the target! I’ve shot it hundreds of times and I’ve never missed my target. Greeting from a former professional soldier of the Bundeswehr.
Australia hasn’t used the MG3 since 2007. When the Leopard AS1 tank was replaced with the M1A1 Abrams the MG3 was no longer used. Instead today we use the MAG-58 GSMG.
In 2015, the german Bundeswehr began to replace the MG 3 with the MG 5, which is called HK121 by the manufacturer Heckler & Koch. Some units also received the lighter MG 4.
I served in the military 10 years ago and this was the gun I was assigned for, it really is an amazing weapon, hitting targets at 300m is incredibly easy in short bursts.
I was a tank commander on a Leopard 1A5 back in the mid nineties. We had two MG-3 for each tank. On for the gunner mounted coaxial on left side of the main gun and on on top of the loaders turret ring. The coaxial one was incredible powerful when mounted on a 40+ tons platform. We had a laser range finder, thermal sight, electrical powered turret and gyro. We could easily hit targets out to 1000-1100 meters with the coax with that setup. The ammo box was mounted on the left side of the turrets inside. If I remember correctly it could fit 2000 rounds. We had additional 3500 rounds hidden under the turret floor inside the hull. The turret had to be rotated to certain positions to access the ammo if needed. I think we had only two barrels which is common. We should probably had three since the cooling period took a while.
The MG 34 wasnt aging it was just more complicated to build. The MG 42 used stamped sheet matal parts in comparison thats drastically made production easyer. as for better the high rate of fire was actually a disadvantage leading to faster overheating and the need to replace the barrle (wich was quite easy) and a higher ammo cosumtion. Thats one of the reason why the MG 3 lowered the rate of fire comparable. You have to remember a MGs unlike a submaschine gun role isnt just to mow things down or fill a close space with bulets. Its as much to supress your oponent and allows your squad to get into Granade range to take oponents down.(in an ofensive role) or pin them in place for Mortar/field gun fire (in a defensive role). What made its groundbreaking was its capabilitys compared to its weight. Bipod monted it filled the LMG role as an organic part of a combat squad while with a heavy tri pod its was stabilized enogh to be used as a heavy Maschine gun. The allies save for the USSR lacked anything comparable. With their versions either being much heavyer or with limited ammo like Brens or BARs due to being mostly used with clips insead of being belt feed. As for asbestos gloves....maybee they come with the Tripod they certainly didnt for the ones asined to squads unless this is an afganistan thingy ,-))). You just used your standard/coldweather gloves and keeped contact to a minimim before they bured you ,-))).
Canada only used the MG3 because they came on some Leopard 2s we bought from Germany in a hurry after our aging Leopard 1s were caught shorthanded against the IED threat in Afghanistan. As such, there was no procurement and testing process for them (nor by extension the MG3), so adding Canada to that list is NOT any kind of endorsement of the gun. Canada replaced the C5 (M1919) MGs with the C6 (FN Mag) that we're still using today after some hiccups in a new (C6A1) production run.
Bruh, you skipped the whole part where Rheinmetall had to completely reverse engineer the MG because the original blueprints disappeared or were stolen before they could even start modifying it for NATO standards. In addition, the MG3 is already being phased out in the German Army and will only be remain on vehicles.
I was still trained in the Bundeswehr on the MG3. The MG is still great after all these years and has an enormous range of uses. Be it in attack, for cover, air defense, mounted on the truck and and and.
The old MG42. I made an exact, fully functional copy of one in my home shop many years ago. Learned some new skills in the process. It took some time, but wasn't all that hard to do. I definitely recommend trying your own hand at it if you have the basic machine tools required and a little bit of research.
@@jamesclarke293 it's not illegal. Not in this country. There is a tax though. Do you believe that only magic dwarves can make this old and simple technology or something? Even the actual designer had no previous experience with firearm design or manufacture.
@@personalaccount8914 vertical mill, lathe, shop press and tooling. You do need machining skills. I would start with the Owen Carbine. Very, very simple SMG. It was first prototyped by a child in his parents work shed. The weapon later served with the Australian military during WWII after a neighbor discovered the kids work during the war. Child's play! Now here it requires communication with the ATF and a tax stamp to build legally. So like driving with a cell phone, please follow those laws.
Darth Vader didn't get around to giving his storm Troopers a MG42 or MG3. They are still carrying around the older MG34. Anyway this is my favourite Machine gun and one weapon that was way ahead of its time.
True. It doesn't have that going for it, and the sound. 🥶 Not that we can't match it, but we kinda don't need that fire rate anymore. It's pretty hard to shoot planes down with machine guns anymore.
That would be the SchKAS.... But the MG 42 could be carried around while the SchKAS was only used in planes. So the MG 42 was the fastest firing single barreled portable Maschinegun.
German technology was very advanced in WW2. The MG 42 was just another example of a weapon that was far superior to anything that the allies could muster on the battlefield. Impressive to say the least!
My buddy that is retired US Army ... was stationed in Germany for quit a while .. he did training with German troops. They liked the M60 weapon a lot . The problem with the MG3 - high rate of fire. They found the M60 with the slower rate better to handle and more useful .
The MG42 design is not 40 years older than the M240, the M240 is the FN MAG 58, designed in early 1950s, adopted into production in 1958, with minor changes. The FN MAG 58 uses a nearly IDENTICAL copy of the MG42 grip/trigger mech housing, and several other parts are interchangeable. The improved ammunition box for the MG3, I'm not sure if you mean the metal 200rd Bundeswehr ammo can, which has a sheet metal wedge riveted in the bottom to keep the belted rounds straight, or the 100rd plastic square belt holder that clips to the feed tray. MG42 was adopted by the Bundeswehr as the MG1, using original WWII guns; MG2 was the MG1/MG42 converted to 7.62mm NATO with new barrel and feed tray with spacer; MG3 was majority all new production parts with a new feed tray and cover for the shorter 7.62 NATO, the heavier bolt for slower cyclic rate, improved Anti-Aircraft Sight and muzzle brake. The US Ordnance Department FAILED in the development of our M60 GPMG, we should have made a more direct copy, instead we got a bodged morph of a Fallschirmjaeger Gewehr 42 gas piston and trigger mechanism with an MG42 feed mechanism, because of our "not invented here" mentality.
May i comment on one small thing? The MG 42, MG3 and all other derivates do not really have a muzzle brake. What that thing is called, could be translated as recoil booster or recoil amplifier. So if i understand the purpose of a muzzle brake correct, this item does the actual opposite.
@@carlwessels2671 Maybe i am wrong, so feel free to correct me if need be, but to my understanding the bolt weight and Springrate handle rate of fire in this application. And the recoil booster is there to ensure reliable function under all circumstances. It makes it relatively insensitive to looser tolerances in powder charges. As well as situations when the gun is shot extremely dirty, and or the lubrication is freezing up. The shove back, the booster provides to the barrel is able to brake the barrel loose but has no effect after this first impuls. (The version i was trained on had maybe 60-70% of the rate of fire of a 42. And while it had visibly more bolt body weight, and we also were told that it had a different spring than the original, the recoil booster looked similar and no mention was made that it got changed in any way.)
@@nirfz Good reply. As I've seen reported the booster helps to speed up the barrel/receiver group which can be used to increase rate of fire. On the slowed down gun (heavier parts) it probably does more to help functioning,like you said.
I shot that MG3 in the Bundeswehr in the early 90ies. At this time we even had barrels with the original Nazi-Cross being "stamped over" using a simple circle. These were known for being less precise, but I liked that wepon way more than my G3 "Assault rifle". As I was way better with the MG3 optics than the G3 ones. At least on 25 meters shooting "50 Pfennig" Coins taped with tranparent tape onto a target. You hit it? You got a fist sized hole and you knew "you nailed it". That thing with a 2-3 times Optics as well as a 3 burst mechanical restrictor rather than full auto - that would have been a wet dream at this time.
Wie soll das den funktionieren? The MG-42 had a caliber of 7.92x57mm, the MG-3, as mentioned in the video, is in 7.62x51mm NATO. And you can't shoot the later through the 7.92mm bore barrel, and you can't "add" those 0.3mm to the bore (the opposite way "could" work", redrilling the bore). Even the older MG-1 and MG-2, which were basic MG-42s reused, had not only be re-chambered but also all needed to get new barrels. Which btw on most MG-3s were "polygon" barrels, not barrels with conventional rifling....
@@TheRealRedRooster I assume that already manufactured raw barrels were re-used, the bolt and ammo was definitely NATO. Otherwise I cannot explain why you see a circle with a "perfect" cross in it on that type of less precise barrels. The better ones did not have that marking.
@@AnkurFFM I doubt that there were many "raw" barrels that had not been bored to 7.92mm left after WW2. Beside that it would take much more than just the barrel to have the right caliber, receiver and thus chamber need to be fitting as well, after all the 7.92x57mm is 6mm longer for the casing, with the overall cartridge even 10mm longer overall. Also not sure what "circle with perfect cross" you are referring to, there certainly were never any barrels used that would have any swastika marking on it, if that is what you are referring to. Beside that the proof mark of the WW2 Waffenamt was the "Lämmergeier", the highly/crudely stylized German Eagle, with an teeny weeny circle with the swastika in its claws, but all of those had to defaced by over-punching the swastika. While I have shot with several MG-1 and MG-2 we had in our battalion armory, I don't recall ever to have seen what would have been a WW2 era (and originally 7.92mm) barrel. The only time that I have indeed seen the "Geier" was on some K98 (both in 7.92mm and completely rechambered ones in 7.62x51) as well as some really old and worn out frames of P38/P1 pistols.
i happen to agree whit that mantra if it isn't broken don't fix it. One of the reason for it is also modern mentality of wanting to fix everything, everything isn't broken, the other is that there are certain designs that are just perfect as they are but some people just want to change it, claiming it will be better wen in fact they just make things worse.
Technically speaking, the M240 action is older than the MG42. It actually uses the same exact action as the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), just flipped upside down to accommodate the belt-fed design.
May be true, but we are talking about the whole weapon here, in that case the MG42 takes the Titel all day long. You could argue, that the M2 mashinegun is older, but that one isn't a multi purpose mashinegun. In essence, the M2 was an AA gun, on tanks, Bomber fighters, boats, Jeeps and mounts.
@@mandernachluca3774 M2s were even used as a sniper rifle by Carlos Halfcock in Vietnam. No other weapon has been used in a more versatile roles then the M2. It was designed in 1918and they've been used in planes, helos, trucks, tanks, drones, heavy weapons squads, ships, PBRs, etc... and still the go to HMG of NATO. I mean what's more versatile then a machineung that can kill anything up to a light tank and can be mounted almost anywhere? If were talking single man portable then the German MG series probably takes the cake. If we're just saying machineguns then I cant see anything better than the M2 Browning.
Dark History aside, the germans really do know how to make great weapons. I mean literally all our modern weapons today as somehow was based on some german weapon at some point.
A beast of a weapon. I never had a chance to fire any other dedicated machine guns to compare it to, but I became quite familiar with the MG3 in the late '90s in the Norwegian army. It eats up ammo very quickly of course, but the barrel can be changed quickly and quite easily.
I served with the German Army we used the MG3 a lot and I must say by far it’s the best MG ever! Sad but also excited to see it get replaced with the MG5.
From what I understand the MG-42 family including the MG-3 are even better than the M-240 family of General Purpose Machine Guns. Makes me wonder what the US with for a variation of the MAG over the MG-3 when replacing the M-60 and MK-219 as the GPMG and COAX.
its bc of money. just imagne how much the US would need to pay to replace the M2... they put this weapon on evrything. if you want to replace it. the sheer number of new weapons needed and the cost to get rid of the old ones....
No they aren't. It's the MAG58 or L7 by the way. The 240 is the much later US designation for the US variant. FN of Belgium and GN Sankey of Britain produced all the originals. Both of which are better.
Having had the privilege of firing a MG3. - owned by a private collector (lawfully papered) I must say I was impressed with it. It takes practice to fire short bursts - as the gun has a very high cyclic rate. The quick change barrel feature is truly amazing. Pop one latch and flip the barrel out (of course wearing suitable heat resistant gloves.) All in all - for a design that traces its roots as back as 1942 - this one excellent piece of engineering. I also had chance to speak with Marine Veteran of WWII. We were discussing weapons - M1903A1, Colt 45, etc. We then talked about Guadalcanal and M1919 30 caliber MG. The aircraft version fired faster (approximately X2 as fast as the infantry version of 400-600 Rounds Per Minute. The Marines would drill holes in the bolt carrier, lightening it - and making the effective rate of fire faster. This was needed to break up massed Banzai and Suicide Charges.
Trained on it in the German army. But as much as I‘am impressed by the sheer power of the MG3…nobody should be proud of it. Any human being on the wrong end of this piece of scrap metal faces an bitter and painful end. And there were many of them including civilians.
im a gunner of the mg3 in the danish homeguard and shoot it i dont know how many times but its a wonderful weapon. as long as you hold it right you will not get a failure in the weapon 99% of the time
just a minor correction: Italy uses what it is called an MG42-59. It is the version of the MG42 modified in 1959 to use 762NATO rounds and some other minor modification. Later (if I am not wrong it was around the mod 80s) the mass of the bolt carrier was increased to reduce rate o fire, down from 1200rpm to 880-900rpm. I shot the MG42-59 as part of my training in the Italian Army.. it is really an amazing weapon
The Italians did a similar thing with the BM59 rifle. They took the US M1 rifle and simply modified it to fire 7.62mm rounds from a detachable box magazine. Unlike the US, they did not make all the other modifications that were incorporated into the M14.
@@allenjenkins7947 yes Sir, absoultely. the most important modification to the FAL BM59 (FAL is Fucile Automatico Leggero.. that translate to Light Autoamtic Rifle.. LOL light) was the goose neck guide rod. the original Grand was a single piece, the BM59 was a dual item, with a larger external and a billet smaller diameter piece siding inside the bigger one. this allowed to slow down the cyclic rate of fire and make it, somhow, usable even in the that role. the BM59 was the rifle I was issued.
It's also interesting to see, essentially, user-centered design (interviewing & shadowing users before starting your design) being applied by a mechanical engineer to design a machine gun in the 1930s.
I used the MG3 in 93. Very accurate on the shooting range. Shoot a quick low burst and the rest will track higher up in a straight line. Almost too easy when shooting drop down targets. If my memory is correct the weight is 11,6 kg, try to carry that for 10-12 hours walking on patrole in shooting position and you will know what tired arms feels like... The day I figured out to put a strap on it to carry it with a strap in shooting position was one of my best days. It was very accurate shooting with the support, but try hitting anything holding it in your hands was almost impossible.
I feel like the MG3 is absolutely Legendary, not just in soldiers , but in a weird way , even in gaming ( Just sayin' , Not implying that Gaming is the only form of it)
it´s an accurate system if you use it like germans did and do. Other nations used machineguns to suppress enemies, german crossed the mg fire to kill enemies.
To fast. I once was in a shooting-simulator and tried to knock off a chopper. Aimed, pulled the trigger and did not let go until the helicopter was gone. Afterwards the officer in charge asked me: "You have to teach me some time, how to put 350 rounds to the MG in a single burst without fucking up the barrel... As it was told in the video: There is a real temptation to do this and the shooter has to control himself.
@@psycho4207 guess what obvious joe I didn’t want to do that, I wanted a firsthand account from someone who actually used it every day, instead of it being 1200 RPM like the mg42 it’s around 900 but wanted it to be clarified.
@@kuunoooo7293 it's been in service much longer meaning it has had more success in it's lifetime. The video is literally called "the most successful machine gun in the world".
@@michaelpielorz9283 this is false, the longest recorded sniper kill in US history for a very long time was done by Carlos "white feather" Hathcock in Vietnam with a Browning M2 with an optic on it.
@@Saved_Sinner0085 why does american gear needs to be better i mean the mg3 / mg42 was very very succesfull even in its shorter lifespan it was prob even or beter than the m2
Ex assault Italian bersagliere here, the MG is the top of the top. I remember the US soldiers that I served with going crazy only looking at it, when they were shoting it they had a huge smile on their faces and wanted more. It's THE machine gun, when it talks you will listen, that burst, that sound, FRRRRR FRRRRR FRRRRR, how could you forget that.
The Kubelwagen was a far better military vehicle as was Schwimmagen, and far more interesting than the rather boring Beetle which thanks to the roof and cab design didn't suit combat. OTOH the Type 181 also saw military service.
Probably not asbestos gloves anymore because of the disease potential of asbestos. More likely Nomex gloves - Nomex is pretty much the standard material used for fire/heat resistance clothing items in the modern era.
In simulation games in which you could choose between the MG 42 and the MG 34, i picked the MG 42 for the fun and the MG 34 for a better kills to spended ammunition ratio. The MG5, the new service multi-purpose Machinegun of the Bundeswehr has far lower fire rates as the MG3.
one small note one the last part, Denmark's army did replace its old MG3 from frontline service (going to the national guard storage I think), replacing it with the M60E6, an improvement on the M60E4 and the latest M60 variant. It won against the HK121 in the Danish Army's GPMG replacement program in March 2014.. A trial that put emphasis on a more lightweight, slower firing modern variant of a already proven machine gun design. As a higher rate of fire requires more ammo to be carried.
@@KrokLP When I used the MG3 in the royal danish army I normally carried around 500-750 rounds myself, not including the 100-150 rounds I had ready in the MG (I'm a big guy). But if you expect a long fight each member of the team of 6-7 men would be carrying at least 750 rounds each. Things might have changed since. But I would like to have at least 1500-2000 rounds ready for a fight.
@@gawkthimm6030 shows how bad the Danish are at War who havent been in real War for centuries lol weak soft gays. I dont wanna see how bad the swedish will fare st the next war against russia and china
During WW2, my father spoke of having to run between bursts of the dreaded Spandau MG 42, which was firing tracers. He had no alternative but to run over a country lane and had to be very careful about his timing. If ever he heard the sound of this dreaded weapon in a tv documentary, he'd say 'A bloody Spandau!'.
Served in Afghanistan and we used the MG3 as a GPMG and never failed. Also: Don't show this to Lindybeige... His ego might have a stroke or something...
I love this weapon. I feel naked without it, and I couldn't care less what we're set up with. I have made sure that my Platoon always have at least 5 functional Rheinmetall MG 3 and plenty of ammo. This weapon is so delightfully lightweight, user friendly and precise, that you become almost invincible in a fluent battlefield situation. Listing the roles I've deployed this weapon in is almost impossible. It's versatility itself. In Norway's mountainous terrain every gram of weight counts. The MG 3 is just right, and you can attack almost any position with it, and you're damn hard to evict when established in a position with enough of these beauties! Mounted on our belted vehicles, it really becomes a heavy puncher, spewing 22 rounds per second. Unfortunately, after many decades of service, the wear on this much loved weapon has forced us to phase them out with FN MAGs and leaving the still functional MG 3s to our 'National Guard' (Heimevernet).
The M-2 is a Heavy MG meant for anti-aircraft and anti-light vehicular work. Legally by the Laws of Land Warfare the M-2 is not to be used for anti-personnel roles. However we all know that it has been.
@@d.l.hemmingway3758 Stop lying and perpetuating a nonsensical myth. You can use any guns of any calibre against any military target. The prohibition against certain weapons only governs things like chemical and biological weapons, blinding lasers, victim-triggered anti-personnel mines (meaning you can only use wired/remote detonation), etc.
@@d.l.hemmingway3758 "Legally by the Laws of Land Warfare the M-2 is not to be used for anti-personnel roles." That is completely false, stop spreading misinformation, there is no law that prevents the M2 browning from being used against personnel, why would that even be a thing, it would render it useless, what do you think happens when you shoot a vehicle... with personnel inside, the logic behind this myth doesn't even make sense, if it were illegal the US would not have even been "allowed" to have them in Afghanistan against the Taliban, because they had no aircraft and their light vehicles were trucks.
@@d.l.hemmingway3758 Not true. It’s perfectly legal and it’s not a war crime to shoot at people and personnel with a 50 cal. Although the 50 cal is generally considered an anti-material round, the .50 inch caliber doesn’t put it in the auto cannon class. 50 cal is still considered a small arms cartridge. The US puts 50 cal rifles in the hands of highly skilled snipers for extreme long range shots. This isn’t typical though, as the 50 cal isn’t a particularly accurate round. For individual shots, it only has an accuracy of 2 MOA at 100yards. Take that out to 1000 yards and you get a 20 MOA spread. This could be improved with match grade ammo but the US military doesn’t buy 50 cal match grade ammo. Not when 50 cal ammo is 5 dollars a shot or more. The 50 cal isn’t exactly accurate. It usually achieves its abilities by sheer volume of fire. If you put enough rounds out there, you’ll hit something. Only a very exceptionally gifted individual can shoot a 50 at long distance with any expectation of pinpoint accuracy. This is why the US military mainly uses the 300 magnum and 338 Lapua Magnum cartridges for that. They’re way more accurate for anti-personnel work. It’s not like anybody’s been reprimanded for shooting at people with cannon caliber rounds. I’ve seen Apache helicopters shoot whole groups of enemy soldiers in the open. The same thing goes for Bradleys and the coaxial guns on Abrams tanks.
Thats cute. The M2HB Browning heavy machine gun was effectively unchanged from its interwar configuration until recently,including straight up not having a safety.
Depends how you define "powerful". The M2 though it has a way more powerful cartridge has a way lower fire rate, so in the end the MG42 might put more weight of lead down range than the M2 and as learned during the Vietnam war, in the end all that counts are the number of fired shots per square meter.
@@dermozart80 I'm not convinced that the American 180 is a particularly powerful machine gun. Insane firing rate, but not really powerful. Power is energy. Kinetic energy is velocity and mass.
I would have to say that the M2 beats out the MG3. Invented in 1918 and still in wide use today. Until the introduction of the M2A1 in 2011, swapping wooden grips with plastic grips was about the only significant design change in almost a century. The M2A1 introduced a new barrel system that allows operators to swap barrels without having to manually tune the guns headspace and timing.
@@ldkbudda4176 The Utes certainly has the edge on the M2 in a couple functional categories, but I would still have to give the win to the M2 in most use-cases. In what ways would you categorize the Utes as the superior weapon system?
In WWII, the Germans liked it, but didn't like how fast it burned ammo. Also, it did not have twice the rate of fire of all Browning 1919s. The Aircraft version had a rate of fire of 1200-1500 RPM. Those could have been deployed on the ground, but were, again, decided to use too much ammunition for the same affect.
I remember specifically it was called Hitler's Buzz saw by the allies that were getting shot at as that's what it sounded like the rate of fire and the accuracy was nuts Germany makes excellent weapons always did always will like them or not
3:44 - FYI: It's "fewer strategic resources" not "less strategic resources". "Less" is only used for uncountable things. So - Less Milk. Less Paint. Less frustration. etc. But for things which can be counted, we always use "fewer". "14 items or fewer" is always correct, and "14 items or less" is always wrong. "Fewer chances to get laid", but "less chance of being caught". Get it? The phrase "less strategic resources" actually refers to resources which are less strategic than other resources. Just as "Less valuable items" refers to items of lower value while "Fewer valuable items" means a lower number of valuable items. English is an incredibly powerful and highly descriptive language - but only when used correctly.
I would argue that the Ma Deuce is more successful in that it has been around longer, in in use in more countries, and they have made more of them. But the M3 is an excellent service weapon and probably the most successful medium machine gun.
Sometimes, the best stuff comes from someone who hasn't done it before. They get a new and fresh perspective which increases the ability to create something new and inventive.
I would say that the Browning M2 .50 caliber Heavy Machine Gun is the most successful machine gun in the world (up to this point anyway). The Browning M2 is coming up on 100 years old and is still in service almost unchanged in dozens if not hundreds of countries around the globe.
"If the Luftwaffe would have had the Browning 50 caliber, the Battle of Britain would have turned out much differently". - Herman Goering. Every machine gun in the United States Military from WW1 all through the Korean War were all Browning designs. I would say that is pretty successful.
Well, the designer was a really smart man! He asked the end users what they needed (something too many ignore - especially in the gun-business, but also fashion or tech...often the designers make what they want, instead of what the customer needs -.-), he familiarised himself with the available weapons (during that machine-gun-course he joined, but probably even more so - he probably took them apart etc.) and then he made a weapon that wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel (he made it so that trained machine-gunners would know how it works without much extra instruction except maybe that there is a quick-change barrel!) and he made it simple to produce compared to the other options! Designs like that can stand the test of time easily, till something radically new comes along (say a coil- or rail-gun if we can figure out how to supply power on the move and make them lighter than current prototypes and have them shoot at higher velocities than what handheld weapons of both types are available right now)...hell, other designs are still around too, from the Browning's designs like the 1911-Pistol (seriously, give it a double stack mag and some picatiny-rail and you have modern handgun, despite the fact that inner workings of the gun are over a century old!), the M2-HMG (sure it changed roles, it was intended to defeat aircraft and even early tanks, but frankly it works fine as a heavy infantry weapons, especially to flush enemies from cover and damage or destroy light vehicles like trucks) etc....to others, hell the Mauser-Action is still the most copied action for a bolt-action-rifle up to this day, sure they now have modular stocks, detachable box-mags, picatiny rail, optics etc. but basically that is still a rifle from over 100 years ago!
What's really impressive is, by 1940 the MG34 was ageing, six years after its introduction. Eight decades on, and the MG42/MG3 has no logical need for replacement - other than to save ammunition.
The logical need to replace it is weight. That's why the MG5 was introduced in the German Army a few years ago. The infantry version of the MG5 weights 300 g less than the MG3 and is easier to use and it does have a NATO rail which allows to add optics by NATO rail standard.
Actually, there are. Production lines were closed in 1981 (save pakistan). Germany is now using the MG5, arguably a better weapon because it has a handle for the barrel, thus eliminating the asbestos glove, has a true ammo box is also a bit lighter . So this weapon will slowly die, however it will soldier on for quite some time to come.
As an Australian Armoured Corps soldier, I was first trained to use the Browning .30 and .50 cal machineguns. I was also trained to use the Mg 3, which was by far the best weapon I've ever used. We weren't given any special instructions - we already knew to fire in short bursts, both to keep the barrel cool and to conserve ammo. There is no need for long bursts anyway, the Mg 3 is incredibly accurate.
I am a Serb from Bosnia and Herzegovina and I have had the opportunity to shoot the Yugoslavian PKM and the Yugoslavian MG-43 (M-53) and I have always been fascinated by the MG-43.
I gotta ask since you have real experience with that fine weapon.. Is it really as laser beam accurate as they portray it in some sims? Also, how is the recoil? Lastly, in your experience compares to the .30 and .50 is she easier to maintenance and clean or does not get gummed up as quicky at all? Just curious.
@@Daniel-jq4qk I'll never forget the first time I squeezed off a burst from the Mg 3. My target was a small bunker on a slope, about 600m away. Every round was on target. With the Browning's, you have to 'walk' your fire onto the target, the Mg 3 is just point and shoot. I don't remember it having much recoil - certainly negligible compared to the .50 cal!
As for maintenance, the Mg 3 is more precisely engineered, but it it's very user friendly. I never experienced a jam.
The .30 and .50 cal Browning guns are pigs. They are both difficult to clean (I should know as I once had to unpack 'new' guns from their crates and remove the grease they'd been covered with decades before I had to clean them). The .30 cal is prone to jamming, and if it's mounted in an M113 turret it's a bastard to clear. The .50 cal is large enough that the mechanism rarely jams. The .30 cal has bad recoil, the .50 cal's recoil is much stronger but as they are always on a heavy tripod if not mounted to a vehicle, they are quite easy to control.
I hope that answers your questions, mate. Thank you for asking, answering you brought back memories of some of the best experiences I've had.
@@zeljkodejanovic8786 As far as I can tell, the Mg-43 is basically just an Mg-42. The Mg 3 is about 30 years more advanced in design.
bruh stop lying
I was a machine gunner in the German Army, the MG3 is wonderful to use and everyone knows how dangerous it is. But you have to say that it's a nuisance to walk through the woods for miles with it. After several hours you have tried every possible carrying method at least once and cursed every single kilogram. Even when cleaning you have a lot of time to invent new curses. Still, I loved every single shot with it and I highly recommend not being on the wrong side.
Yes, agree totally! Shooting these short bursts were at first a challenge for me, as the rounds went too far up and left. I had to tame that beast. But then it was really cool
Plus a few more curses especially dedicated to your instructor in basic training. Any time there was anything remotely resembling mud you heard the call "Fliegeralarm" and knew it would add another 30 minutes to the cleaning procedure :)
But firing the MG3 just brings that smile to your lips every time. It feels insane to say, but this weapon is just so fun to use.
“Carrying every possible method” brought back memories of portaging between lakes in Canada while carrying an outboard motor.
Lmao Germans are so funny, your armed forces have seen limited engagements usually when helping out the Americans or in the north of Afghanistan and as of right now you've lost a total of like 30 dudes in the war on terror, you pay for practically nothing in NATO your country has successfully owned Europe now for 40 years with the creation of the EU but sure bud don't wanna be on the wrong side of a 60 year old machine gun I'm sure towel heads would love to get their hands on one of those after they suicide bomb your buddies or actually from what I've read here a majority of German army fatalities have been from ineptitude around explosives or suicide from the stress of being made into a functional army again
I was an M60 gunner on and off with the 7th ID (LIGHT) and in Germany 2AD (FWD), during the mid-'80s. I thought the M60 was a pretty good MG, it needed some TLC but still good MG. Thenl I got to fire the MG3, the M60 was never the same for me after that.
Whats TLC?
@@PP-hx5it tender loving care
Denmark have since 2014 replaced the the LMG M/62s (as it is called in danish service) with the M60E6...
it should be noted that the E6 is a rather different gun than earlier versions.
I've often wondered how the 60 stacked up against the MG3. I was national guard so getting exposure to foreign weapons was never a thing. We didn't even get 60's added to our MTOE (I was in maintenance companies most of my career) until the early 90's and we only had them for about 6 years before turning them in and getting M249's.
In Yugoslav army MG 42 known as Zastava M 53 in original 8mm version was a main machine gun up to the 1975-80 after was replaced with yugo version of PKM known as Zastava M 84
Another reason why the Germans opted to use the MG42 backbone instead of making a new MG from scratch was because there where still a lot of MG42's in warehouses (mostly in other countries), so they made conversion kits for them to be able to fit NATO rounds. If im not mistake there are still MG3's that where originally MG42's from WW2 still in service.
@@fuhlfur3061 probably there are in some African and South american countries.
@@fuhlfur3061 No, wartime 7.92×57mm Mauser chambered MG 42 machine guns that remained in service were converted to the standard 7.62×51mm NATO chambering and designated MG 2
It's possible but unlikely. The MG1s and MG2s were all brought up to the same standard as the MG3, but as others here are pointing out, the weapon is being phased out slowly. So, good bet that the oldest guns were the first to go.
I'm not german, but our MG74's are also conversions of the 42.
(the devellopment for our conversionswas was done by Beretta and Steyr. Our decision makers opted for a heavier bolt, stiffer spring and thus way lower rate of fire of around 750 rpm).
During my conscript time 99/00 one of the MG's we got trained on, either had the feed cover (top cover?) or the housing of an original 42.
Under the right light conditions and correct angle, the formerly stamped in 42 that had been sanded off at the conversion was still a bit visible. (But after 23 years i don't remember if it was the top cover or the the housing.)
I mean there are parts that don't really wear much, and if they are kept from rusting, no problem to use them further.
Things like the cocking handle, housing, grip and feed cover easily can last that long if they don't get damaged.
It's clear that no one would find orignal 42 springs, barrels and bolt heads in MG3's as they are part of the conversion anyways, or consumable items that wear out like rollers, barrel bushings and again: springs. Or bipods that get broken by soliders in use on rare occasions.
Maybe the recoil booster could also be reused as the gas pressures of both rounds are similiar.
(i would argue that from 8mm Mauser to 7,62 you won't be reboring barrels. The NATO round is shorter and has a smaller bullet diameter. To make such a barrel work, you would need to bore it out way further and insert a "liner" then cut new lands and grooves into that liner. And before that: weld in some material into the chamber and drill/ream it out again to fit the new casing proportions. That is something that gets done occasionally for bolt action guns, but for a MG barrel? Cheaper and easier to make new barrels in the right caliber. Also, during wartime use, the barrel changes for sure weren't done every 150-200 rounds, so the existing 42 barrels would be k.o. anyways.)
Additional "fun fact":Among 10, 20 and 30 year old jerrycans (they all had their year of production stamped into the sides), we also found one stamped 1944 when stacking cans for an oncomming exercise.
In good general shape with only a little bit of surface rust on one edge. It was still in normal use for Diesel. (for 56 years by that time)
@@fuhlfur3061 According to the Bundeswehr, the phasing out of the MG3 started around 5 years ago. Clearly there have been converted 42s in use while the MG5 was developed, but I too believe they are now already sold to private owners / other armies.
I spent plenty of time using the MG-3 as a Leopard Gunner in 1st Armoured Regiment and School of Armour in the Aussie Army. It is truly a magnificent weapon. Easy to use, even easier to maintain, and barrel swaps are extremely quick. Not to mention that stoppages are very rare. I've used M-60, L1A2 ( SLR LMG ), M240, Bren, M249, and both Browning M1919 in 7.62, and of course the 50 cal. And the MG-3 was by far the best of the lot. BY FAR!. I even remember my first time using it out on Puckapunyal Range as a 19 y.o. It was the best day!. Really sad when we went from Leopard to Abrams. The only other weapons I enjoyed almost as much were the 76mm Cannon on the MRV, and the 25mm Chain Gun on the LAV-25.
"barrel swaps are extremely quick" DON'T FORGET THE GLOVES!!!
Thats so awesome, I really hope I get a chance to fire one before I die although odds are I wont lol. You actually answered one of my questions to another Aussie counterpart of yours that has experience with the weapon. I was curious how well she maintained how the cleaning and gunk build up was. By the sounds of it though as you said easy to maintain clearly verry tough* even in Austalia's harsher environments.
Unfortunately, I never got the chance to use most of those weapons. The F1 SMG was fun to use, easy to clean, and never jammed. I also got to use the Carl Gustave, which was amazing. Recent variants have proven very effective in Ukrainian hands.
@@andrewstrongman305 When were you in? and what Unit?. If you used 84 - were you an Assault Tpr?. Yep F1 was fun with live rounds - simple to clean with the literal 3 parts!!!! LOL.
@@Daniel-jq4qk it was pretty simple to maintain and clean - no more fiddly than any other MG. We used it in Puckapunyal which is North of Melbourne, Victoria where it is a rural area and in Summer it does get hot, but the conditions are not bad. It doesn't get real dusty and humid. But rain and mud could be a problem at times. Now that most Armour has moved up to Northern parts of Australia, the conditions are way worse. Darwin is absolutely horrendous. 6 months of the year it is Hot AF and super humid, and then the other 6 months are hot and dry and very dusty. Nice place Darwin, but the weather sucks balls - the big base is near Palmerston, about 20 mins South of Darwin. It is really nice with excellent amenities and barracks. The state and region are excellent for fishing/hunting and 4x4ing/camping, but extremely remote from any other city. You either love it or hate it. The nightlife for meeting chicks is excellent, and Darwin has great places to eat and experience great multi cultural society.
The design was so successful it was adopted by the Colonial Marines as the M56 Smartgun in the movie Aliens.
LOL 🤣
stormtroopers on the death star used them too
LETS ROCK!!!!
@@gehtdichnixan3200 no
@@vaderbase check the scene where they get into the cell block in disguise
Still, the MG 34 stayed in production until the end of WWII due to the quick-change barrel mechanism for use in the fighting compartment of tanks and other such armored fighting vehicals.
Yes but no. Quick-Change can do both. MG34 does it to the rear, which takes up less space in the tank. Mg 42 changes the barrel to the side
@@D.R658 That was the point. Most German tanks were developed with the MG 34 as the standard on board weapon. In order to go over to the MG 42, the gun port on the tanks would have had to be redesigned. Easier to keep the 34 in production.
The 34 is also more durable and better made because its comprised of milled parts not stamped. MG34 all the way, enough fire rate imo.
But time consuming and expensive to manufacture. The firearms equivalent of a fire hose does not need to be all that complicated or expensive it just needs to work. A predictable beaten zone at X distance with features added to deal with the heat production.
@@D.R658 The method of barrel change made the MG 42 unsuitable for internal secondary or co-axial armament on World War II era German tanks or other armored vehicles with the exception of the Jagdpanzer IV. Early versions of the Jagdpanzer IV carried two standard (no modification made) MG 42s on both sides of the main gun mantlet/glacis, firing through a firing port which was protected by an armored cover plate (with the MG 42 retracted) when not in use. Later version Jagdpanzer IVs carried only one MG 42 as internal secondary armament.
I wouldn't be surprised if the MG-3 still remains in some form of service 100 years after it was first introduced. Some developments simply cannot be further improved.
You mean like the M2 Browning already has?
@@georgesakellaropoulos8162
Not the same, the M2 Browning is not a multi purpose mashinegun used by infantry and vehicles alike ....
@@mandernachluca3774 Why does firing a heavier caliber make it not count? It was widely used against infantry, light vehicles, light static defenses, and low-flying aircraft on the ground. Still is, too.
Imagine they make one with barrels that can withstand more rounds being fired before needing to be replaced
@@crowe6961 The question is not what the gun is used against, it's a question what the gun is used with. In particular in an infantry role without a fixed mount (= only bipod). That's the definition of a light machine gun.
The moment you mount it fixed it's a heavy machine gun. A particular model used in both cases is a universal machine gun.
For comparison out of US inventory: M60 was universal.
MG42 was truly a game changer, but I think the Browning M2 takes the cake for most successful. It has stood the test of time and beyond. It is a gun that is hard to even replace.
The most durable and long-lasting machines are always based on the Keep It Simple principle. Both work on blowback, not gas operation, and use a minimum of parts. Simple and effective. No computers, no complicated mechanical systems, nothing to plug up or jamb.
As Scotty said one time,”The more they engineer the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.”
Not to mention the versatility of the M2. It's been on pretty much every type of vehicle in the U.S. military from planes to tanks, ships, trucks, APC's etc etc.. We're still equipping a weapon developed in the 1930's on to remote weapons stations with state of the art optics and thermals. We've even continued to develop new advanced ammunition for this weapon such as the raufoss (anti material, anti armor) round and the SLAP (saboted light armor penetrator) round. Just look at the wikipedia pages of both weapons and look at how many countries each weapon is in use in. There's just no comparison, the M2 Browning by far has been the most successful machine gun in the world.
As a general purpose machine gun, MG3 is comparable to FN MAG platform (aka M240) or PK platform. M2, however, is a heavy machine gun.
@@ssaraccoii not particularly true. By that logic the 737 wouldn't have outlasted the DC-3. Engineering is a balancing act of many components. But just ask the Russians how much fun they are doing trying to counter the complicated HIMARS with 'simple and reliable' tube artillery
@@huntforandrew It was designed in 1918 and entered service in 1933
Had the honor of throwing 150 rounds down range with the MG-42 last summer. As a history buff I was in heaven.
It was also a very short fix you got if it was with the original firering rate :-)
And then a new barrel? 🏴😳🏴
That must have been an amazing experience. Some 25 years ago my friend at a military shooting contest down in Germany managed with an old MG42 to hit bullseye with a "burst" of a single shot (that's holding the trigger for a mere 1/20 of a second). What's perhaps more special is that he was never in the military himself (his friend was former soldier an machine gun expert, but he wasn't the one to do this shot). It was some NATO competition, and the participating countries chose their own way of selecting their participants; some had selective competitions at home, others selected in other ways. My two friends got invited sort of "unofficially" since they were not in the military, yet they participated for several years. And my "not-ever--military" friend did this amazing shot. His other ex-soldiers friend won the overall machine gun competition the same year.
did you notice the barrel needing to be replaced?
Barely got your finger off the trigger ,huh,?
Also a good thing: Once you are used to handling it will never go away, like driving a bicycle. I had not used it for over 20 years but recently I did it again and I still had the muscle memory and knew exactly how to react to the recoil, to a misfire etc. This Lady is so intuitive in its handling.
It's a true military classic!
Certified
But how will this affect lebron´s legacy?
@@billdotree7792 Hood
@@JackManiaky classic
A full circle
During my armytime in Germany in the early 90s I loved to fire the MG3 - what a feeling!!! Such a great weapon. It never jammed and was so easy to handle - cleaning, maintenance, barrel change…
This, as well as the M2 Browning, is definitely one of the, if not the most timeless weapon designs in history
The thing about the M2 is. I simply cannot understand why it's got such a wide adoption..
It's extremely heavy for it's caliber making it not ideal for aircraft use... Jet it was... It's even heavier for infantrymen to carry around because you need the fucking stand...🙈
Still got adopted.
And it's not even verry precise nor has a particular good cycle time... 🙈
Fascinating isn't it?
@@justacomment1657 The difference it that it is a heavy machine gun rather than a light machine gun like the BAR or M240. They have different roles.
@@justacomment1657 Firstly, America. Secondly, it's more of a heavy machine gun, you don't carry it, you mount it. .50 cal is a really nice caliber for punching through armor, buildings, aircraft, whatever, and it can carry a wide variety of payloads without becoming a cannon. Russia uses a 14mm gun for similar reasons.
The gun also just *works*, and when they don't, it doesn't take too much to make them work again.
@@justacomment1657
The M2 is simple to produce, reliable, and packs enough punch to pierce thick concrete walls and lightly armored vehicles. It doesn't need to be particularly light because it's mostly mounted on vehicles rather than carried around anyways.
It also had the benefit of a universal receiver, which meant it could easily be swapped out for different setups. That's not such a big deal anymore, but it was a significant part of its original adoption during WWII.
It's not meant to be some expensive perfect super weapon. It's meant to be something powerful and reliable that can be produced en masse and tacked onto anything and everything.
Also "And it's not even very precise". You do realize that the M2 browning held most of the top ten long distance sniping records from Vietnam until the 2000s, right?
Just to clarify: In Canada, the only MG3s we have were on Leo 2s bought from Germany (about 20 units). We use the FN MAG (C6) for everything else
Cool story bro
@@StoutProper shut up
In Austria it's the other way around. We run MG74s license made by Steyr but have MAGs on our Leos.
I guess something was mixed up with the stamps in the post office when our countries ordered their Leos ;)
same in Denmark since 2014 the LMG M/62s have been replaced by M60E6...
With the exception of the mgs on Leopard 2s and the different recovery and engineering tanks.
In Portugal we also use the MG3 on L2A6 (2x) - the Leo is now entering a modernization stage, not sure if the MG3 will be phased out or also set in a modernized system, but also on other vehicles, not only the Leopard, like some of the 8x8 Pandur II ICV/RWS versions alonside with Browning M2HB, some older HMMWV
I always liked very much the MG 42 but also the very high quality MG 34 and the MG 3 that said when I was doing compulsory military service in Italy, I'm Italian, I had the great fortune to shoot all three of them in 1968 as the warehouses was well stockpiled with 2nd WW guns. Great fun! I could hear and feel the difference compared to the MG 42 but not much. It was was quite heavy to handle both the guns and the ammo trough...
Hello one Italian to another Italian.👍 🇮🇹
@@josephpacchetti5997 ciao ciao 👋👋🇮🇹🇮🇹
Sir what was then your army's manual when firing in woodland,, forrested/bush areas wherein the enemies can be closer and dispersed. Is short bursts still mandatory at that time?
@@neiljasonvillanueva1864 generally we were only shooting short burst as well stated in the manual translated from German. In my time we had a core of veterans training us in my barracks giving very useful tips!!
Well with that name no one will take you as anything else than a italian, that´s for sure. lol.
Very impressive piece of kit. Along with the MA2, both universally recognizable by sight and sound.
When I was in the Bundeswehr some of our training MG3 and one of the first I ever held in my hands had a german eagle and swastika on it but the symbols were scratched off.
Still.....you could clearly see what it once was. What an awesome gun.
I have fired both, mG42 and mg3 honestly the 8mm is only different in its higher rate of fire, the way the barrel changess is better than the m60 or the m240, it slides out with gravity and you can easily change it prone, with your head down and a much lower silouette
Well, for small ppl, its not that easy to change the barrel while proning, but it was possible. :)
Drake and Vasquez still uses this oldie but goldie german technology in 2190 against xenos.
Look man, I only need to know one thing: where they are.
In the Swiss Army we had the M51 which traces back directly to the German products of WW2, replaced by the Minimi in the infantry, still used on vehicles and tanks.
I remember playing brothers in arms on my grandparents computer after getting it on Christmas. What I didn’t know was my uncle heard the MG42 fire from a distance in game while napping in the lazy boy and I also didn’t know at the time he landed with the 29th infantry on Omaha. He heard that through the speakers and hit the deck. The funny thing was he wanted to try the game out after hearing the ruckus and was a badass at the game. Me and him would play the coop missions together. Leave it to someone who fought the actual war to love a video game portraying it and have the tactical ability at his age to slay it. He really liked the tactical part of it. It was when EIB dropped.
The MG3 is really good, especially the setback is not too strong despite 7. 62mm, so you can always stay on the target! I’ve shot it hundreds of times and I’ve never missed my target. Greeting from a former professional soldier of the Bundeswehr.
"setback"
Do you mean "recoil"?
@@geoh7777 sorry yes, my english is not the best!
Australia hasn’t used the MG3 since 2007. When the Leopard AS1 tank was replaced with the M1A1 Abrams the MG3 was no longer used.
Instead today we use the MAG-58 GSMG.
Bad move MG3/MG42 is a masterpiece.
As a former M60 gunner in the Army I heart belt fed weapons. Always wanted to shoot one of these.
Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
I love the MG 3. We shot it almost every day when in the infantry, 2. battalion, northern Norway.
In 2015, the german Bundeswehr began to replace the MG 3 with the MG 5, which is called HK121 by the manufacturer Heckler & Koch.
Some units also received the lighter MG 4.
I served in the military 10 years ago and this was the gun I was assigned for, it really is an amazing weapon, hitting targets at 300m is incredibly easy in short bursts.
I was a tank commander on a Leopard 1A5 back in the mid nineties. We had two MG-3 for each tank. On for the gunner mounted coaxial on left side of the main gun and on on top of the loaders turret ring. The coaxial one was incredible powerful when mounted on a 40+ tons platform. We had a laser range finder, thermal sight, electrical powered turret and gyro. We could easily hit targets out to 1000-1100 meters with the coax with that setup. The ammo box was mounted on the left side of the turrets inside. If I remember correctly it could fit 2000 rounds. We had additional 3500 rounds hidden under the turret floor inside the hull. The turret had to be rotated to certain positions to access the ammo if needed. I think we had only two barrels which is common. We should probably had three since the cooling period took a while.
In den Munitionskästen sind 500 Schuss und es gibt einen Wechsellauf und einen Wechselverschluss.
The MG 34 wasnt aging it was just more complicated to build. The MG 42 used stamped sheet matal parts in comparison thats drastically made production easyer. as for better the high rate of fire was actually a disadvantage leading to faster overheating and the need to replace the barrle (wich was quite easy) and a higher ammo cosumtion. Thats one of the reason why the MG 3 lowered the rate of fire comparable.
You have to remember a MGs unlike a submaschine gun role isnt just to mow things down or fill a close space with bulets. Its as much to supress your oponent and allows your squad to get into Granade range to take oponents down.(in an ofensive role) or pin them in place for Mortar/field gun fire (in a defensive role).
What made its groundbreaking was its capabilitys compared to its weight. Bipod monted it filled the LMG role as an organic part of a combat squad while with a heavy tri pod its was stabilized enogh to be used as a heavy Maschine gun. The allies save for the USSR lacked anything comparable. With their versions either being much heavyer or with limited ammo like Brens or BARs due to being mostly used with clips insead of being belt feed.
As for asbestos gloves....maybee they come with the Tripod they certainly didnt for the ones asined to squads unless this is an afganistan thingy ,-))). You just used your standard/coldweather gloves and keeped contact to a minimim before they bured you ,-))).
Canada only used the MG3 because they came on some Leopard 2s we bought from Germany in a hurry after our aging Leopard 1s were caught shorthanded against the IED threat in Afghanistan. As such, there was no procurement and testing process for them (nor by extension the MG3), so adding Canada to that list is NOT any kind of endorsement of the gun.
Canada replaced the C5 (M1919) MGs with the C6 (FN Mag) that we're still using today after some hiccups in a new (C6A1) production run.
Bruh, you skipped the whole part where Rheinmetall had to completely reverse engineer the MG because the original blueprints disappeared or were stolen before they could even start modifying it for NATO standards. In addition, the MG3 is already being phased out in the German Army and will only be remain on vehicles.
Yet still remains in service in many other countries
Why don't you create your own videos instead of trying to show off?
You come across as an egotistic prat.
Their gonna be using the MG4 now I believe
@@greenman1212 MG5, MG4 is the 5.56 gun
I was still trained in the Bundeswehr on the MG3. The MG is still great after all these years and has an enormous range of uses. Be it in attack, for cover, air defense, mounted on the truck and and and.
It's a "Bullet Hose"!! Incredibly fun to shoot.
The old MG42. I made an exact, fully functional copy of one in my home shop many years ago. Learned some new skills in the process. It took some time, but wasn't all that hard to do. I definitely recommend trying your own hand at it if you have the basic machine tools required and a little bit of research.
In case of zombie apocalypse remember me to contact you !😄
What tools and skills are required?
@@jamesclarke293 it's not illegal. Not in this country. There is a tax though. Do you believe that only magic dwarves can make this old and simple technology or something? Even the actual designer had no previous experience with firearm design or manufacture.
@@personalaccount8914 vertical mill, lathe, shop press and tooling. You do need machining skills. I would start with the Owen Carbine. Very, very simple SMG. It was first prototyped by a child in his parents work shed. The weapon later served with the Australian military during WWII after a neighbor discovered the kids work during the war. Child's play! Now here it requires communication with the ATF and a tax stamp to build legally. So like driving with a cell phone, please follow those laws.
@@jamesclarke293 I am contented to leave you in your ignorance. Magic kid. It's all magic. And aliens. 🤣
German weapons
German design
German cars
German engineer
German knowhow
Amazing !
Darth Vader didn't get around to giving his storm Troopers a MG42 or MG3. They are still carrying around the older MG34. Anyway this is my favourite Machine gun and one weapon that was way ahead of its time.
The MG-42 is still to this day. The fastest firing, singled barreled MG on Earth.
True. It doesn't have that going for it, and the sound. 🥶
Not that we can't match it, but we kinda don't need that fire rate anymore.
It's pretty hard to shoot planes down with machine guns anymore.
@@nocturnal0072 This is true.
That would be the SchKAS.... But the MG 42 could be carried around while the SchKAS was only used in planes. So the MG 42 was the fastest firing single barreled portable Maschinegun.
No its the MG3 wich is a improved mg 42
fastest - changel single barrel - after 150 rounds
Those German engineers are super crafty lol
Well spent considerable time behind a MG3. Love it. Australia is not using it anymore so far I know, since the leopard 1 retirement.
Did it beat the Emus?
@@mattyallen3396 nothing beats emus, only way is to nuke them. But do you have any idea how big the country is ?
Correct
German technology was very advanced in WW2. The MG 42 was just another example of a weapon that was far superior to anything that the allies could muster on the battlefield. Impressive to say the least!
My buddy that is retired US Army ... was stationed in Germany for quit a while .. he did training with German troops. They liked the M60 weapon a lot . The problem with the MG3 - high rate of fire. They found the M60 with the slower rate better to handle and more useful .
The MG42 design is not 40 years older than the M240, the M240 is the FN MAG 58, designed in early 1950s, adopted into production in 1958, with minor changes. The FN MAG 58 uses a nearly IDENTICAL copy of the MG42 grip/trigger mech housing, and several other parts are interchangeable. The improved ammunition box for the MG3, I'm not sure if you mean the metal 200rd Bundeswehr ammo can, which has a sheet metal wedge riveted in the bottom to keep the belted rounds straight, or the 100rd plastic square belt holder that clips to the feed tray. MG42 was adopted by the Bundeswehr as the MG1, using original WWII guns; MG2 was the MG1/MG42 converted to 7.62mm NATO with new barrel and feed tray with spacer; MG3 was majority all new production parts with a new feed tray and cover for the shorter 7.62 NATO, the heavier bolt for slower cyclic rate, improved Anti-Aircraft Sight and muzzle brake. The US Ordnance Department FAILED in the development of our M60 GPMG, we should have made a more direct copy, instead we got a bodged morph of a Fallschirmjaeger Gewehr 42 gas piston and trigger mechanism with an MG42 feed mechanism, because of our "not invented here" mentality.
May i comment on one small thing? The MG 42, MG3 and all other derivates do not really have a muzzle brake. What that thing is called, could be translated as recoil booster or recoil amplifier. So if i understand the purpose of a muzzle brake correct, this item does the actual opposite.
@@nirfz You're right the booster increases recoil to speed up the rate of fire.
@@carlwessels2671 Maybe i am wrong, so feel free to correct me if need be, but to my understanding the bolt weight and Springrate handle rate of fire in this application.
And the recoil booster is there to ensure reliable function under all circumstances. It makes it relatively insensitive to looser tolerances in powder charges. As well as situations when the gun is shot extremely dirty, and or the lubrication is freezing up.
The shove back, the booster provides to the barrel is able to brake the barrel loose but has no effect after this first impuls.
(The version i was trained on had maybe 60-70% of the rate of fire of a 42. And while it had visibly more bolt body weight, and we also were told that it had a different spring than the original, the recoil booster looked similar and no mention was made that it got changed in any way.)
@@nirfz Good reply. As I've seen reported the booster helps to speed up the barrel/receiver group which can be used to increase rate of fire. On the slowed down gun (heavier parts) it probably does more to help functioning,like you said.
I shot that MG3 in the Bundeswehr in the early 90ies. At this time we even had barrels with the original Nazi-Cross being "stamped over" using a simple circle. These were known for being less precise, but I liked that wepon way more than my G3 "Assault rifle". As I was way better with the MG3 optics than the G3 ones. At least on 25 meters shooting "50 Pfennig" Coins taped with tranparent tape onto a target. You hit it? You got a fist sized hole and you knew "you nailed it".
That thing with a 2-3 times Optics as well as a 3 burst mechanical restrictor rather than full auto - that would have been a wet dream at this time.
Wie soll das den funktionieren? The MG-42 had a caliber of 7.92x57mm, the MG-3, as mentioned in the video, is in 7.62x51mm NATO. And you can't shoot the later through the 7.92mm bore barrel, and you can't "add" those 0.3mm to the bore (the opposite way "could" work", redrilling the bore). Even the older MG-1 and MG-2, which were basic MG-42s reused, had not only be re-chambered but also all needed to get new barrels. Which btw on most MG-3s were "polygon" barrels, not barrels with conventional rifling....
@@TheRealRedRooster I assume that already manufactured raw barrels were re-used, the bolt and ammo was definitely NATO. Otherwise I cannot explain why you see a circle with a "perfect" cross in it on that type of less precise barrels. The better ones did not have that marking.
@@AnkurFFM I doubt that there were many "raw" barrels that had not been bored to 7.92mm left after WW2. Beside that it would take much more than just the barrel to have the right caliber, receiver and thus chamber need to be fitting as well, after all the 7.92x57mm is 6mm longer for the casing, with the overall cartridge even 10mm longer overall. Also not sure what "circle with perfect cross" you are referring to, there certainly were never any barrels used that would have any swastika marking on it, if that is what you are referring to. Beside that the proof mark of the WW2 Waffenamt was the "Lämmergeier", the highly/crudely stylized German Eagle, with an teeny weeny circle with the swastika in its claws, but all of those had to defaced by over-punching the swastika. While I have shot with several MG-1 and MG-2 we had in our battalion armory, I don't recall ever to have seen what would have been a WW2 era (and originally 7.92mm) barrel. The only time that I have indeed seen the "Geier" was on some K98 (both in 7.92mm and completely rechambered ones in 7.62x51) as well as some really old and worn out frames of P38/P1 pistols.
Almost 80 year old design.
I remember seeing this in Spanish CH-47 helicopters on deployment in 1999.
I would LOVE to see a picture of those if you can find one
i happen to agree whit that mantra if it isn't broken don't fix it.
One of the reason for it is also modern mentality of wanting to fix everything, everything isn't broken, the other is that there are certain designs that are just perfect as they are but some people just want to change it, claiming it will be better wen in fact they just make things worse.
Technically speaking, the M240 action is older than the MG42. It actually uses the same exact action as the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), just flipped upside down to accommodate the belt-fed design.
So does the Browning M2 .50 cal machine gun that was out into service in 1933, well before the M240 or MG42.
May be true, but we are talking about the whole weapon here, in that case the MG42 takes the Titel all day long. You could argue, that the M2 mashinegun is older, but that one isn't a multi purpose mashinegun. In essence, the M2 was an AA gun, on tanks, Bomber fighters, boats, Jeeps and mounts.
@@mandernachluca3774 the mg34 was Germany's multirole mg. The mg42 was less so due to the inability to have it in vehicles
@@mandernachluca3774 M2s were even used as a sniper rifle by Carlos Halfcock in Vietnam. No other weapon has been used in a more versatile roles then the M2. It was designed in 1918and they've been used in planes, helos, trucks, tanks, drones, heavy weapons squads, ships, PBRs, etc... and still the go to HMG of NATO. I mean what's more versatile then a machineung that can kill anything up to a light tank and can be mounted almost anywhere? If were talking single man portable then the German MG series probably takes the cake. If we're just saying machineguns then I cant see anything better than the M2 Browning.
Dark History aside, the germans really do know how to make great weapons. I mean literally all our modern weapons today as somehow was based on some german weapon at some point.
A beast of a weapon. I never had a chance to fire any other dedicated machine guns to compare it to, but I became quite familiar with the MG3 in the late '90s in the Norwegian army. It eats up ammo very quickly of course, but the barrel can be changed quickly and quite easily.
Heldig gris
I served with the German Army we used the MG3 a lot and I must say by far it’s the best MG ever! Sad but also excited to see it get replaced with the MG5.
I had no idea they were still using this thing, but I'm not surprised at all. Brilliant design all around!
A little fact, the West Germans had to reverse engineer the M-42 since they lost the TDP package of the original M-42 after the war..
From what I understand the MG-42 family including the MG-3 are even better than the M-240 family of General Purpose Machine Guns. Makes me wonder what the US with for a variation of the MAG over the MG-3 when replacing the M-60 and MK-219 as the GPMG and COAX.
I think the us just wanted something that they could produce in the us. Even the pkm in 7.62 NATO is lighter than the m240.
its bc of money. just imagne how much the US would need to pay to replace the M2... they put this weapon on evrything. if you want to replace it. the sheer number of new weapons needed and the cost to get rid of the old ones....
No they aren't. It's the MAG58 or L7 by the way. The 240 is the much later US designation for the US variant. FN of Belgium and GN Sankey of Britain produced all the originals. Both of which are better.
@@toniberger6005 Bub, they are referring to medium machine guns, not heavy machine guns.
The army has zero intention of ever replacing the M2.
Having had the privilege of firing a MG3. - owned by a private collector (lawfully papered) I must say I was impressed with it. It takes practice to fire short bursts - as the gun has a very high cyclic rate.
The quick change barrel feature is truly amazing. Pop one latch and flip the barrel out (of course wearing suitable heat resistant gloves.) All in all - for a design that traces its roots as back as 1942 - this one excellent piece of engineering.
I also had chance to speak with Marine Veteran of WWII. We were discussing weapons - M1903A1, Colt 45, etc. We then talked about Guadalcanal and M1919 30 caliber MG. The aircraft version fired faster (approximately X2 as fast as the infantry version of 400-600 Rounds Per Minute. The Marines would drill holes in the bolt carrier, lightening it - and making the effective rate of fire faster. This was needed to break up massed Banzai and Suicide Charges.
meanwhile we did the m60, which was basically the feed tray, cover, and stripping mechanism from this and all the parts some committee wanted.
Trained on it in the German army. But as much as I‘am impressed by the sheer power of the MG3…nobody should be proud of it. Any human being on the wrong end of this piece of scrap metal faces an bitter and painful end. And there were many of them including civilians.
im a gunner of the mg3 in the danish homeguard and shoot it i dont know how many times but its a wonderful weapon. as long as you hold it right you will not get a failure in the weapon 99% of the time
Also gunner. Thumbs up.
just a minor correction: Italy uses what it is called an MG42-59. It is the version of the MG42 modified in 1959 to use 762NATO rounds and some other minor modification. Later (if I am not wrong it was around the mod 80s) the mass of the bolt carrier was increased to reduce rate o fire, down from 1200rpm to 880-900rpm. I shot the MG42-59 as part of my training in the Italian Army.. it is really an amazing weapon
The Italians did a similar thing with the BM59 rifle. They took the US M1 rifle and simply modified it to fire 7.62mm rounds from a detachable box magazine. Unlike the US, they did not make all the other modifications that were incorporated into the M14.
@@allenjenkins7947 yes Sir, absoultely. the most important modification to the FAL BM59 (FAL is Fucile Automatico Leggero.. that translate to Light Autoamtic Rifle.. LOL light) was the goose neck guide rod. the original Grand was a single piece, the BM59 was a dual item, with a larger external and a billet smaller diameter piece siding inside the bigger one. this allowed to slow down the cyclic rate of fire and make it, somhow, usable even in the that role. the BM59 was the rifle I was issued.
Isn't it crazy how some of the most powerful weapons in history were made by people that never used or made them before????
It's also interesting to see, essentially, user-centered design (interviewing & shadowing users before starting your design) being applied by a mechanical engineer to design a machine gun in the 1930s.
Someone with the relevant skills but not bogged down by the conventions of an industry is the person you need to make big improvements.
The obvious reference nobody mentioned (surprisingly) is Gaston Glock.
I used the MG3 in 93. Very accurate on the shooting range. Shoot a quick low burst and the rest will track higher up in a straight line. Almost too easy when shooting drop down targets.
If my memory is correct the weight is 11,6 kg, try to carry that for 10-12 hours walking on patrole in shooting position and you will know what tired arms feels like... The day I figured out to put a strap on it to carry it with a strap in shooting position was one of my best days.
It was very accurate shooting with the support, but try hitting anything holding it in your hands was almost impossible.
I feel like the MG3 is absolutely Legendary, not just in soldiers , but in a weird way , even in gaming ( Just sayin' , Not implying that Gaming is the only form of it)
I've used it in the Danish Army. What a beast it is. It demanded respect and it got it. Love it.
We(Denmark) still use it as a coax gun on our Leopard 2 and CV9035's.
MG42 Tiger tank flak 88 stg automatic rifle and the German hand grenade are such great designs and implimention. Hats off to the German engineers
The History and Story behind the MG42 is just astonishingly novel.
Eh, the MG42 wasn't renowned for its accuracy. It was renowned for its rate of fire and capability as a suppression system.
it´s an accurate system if you use it like germans did and do. Other nations used machineguns to suppress enemies, german crossed the mg fire to kill enemies.
It was and still is my favorit piece of equipment. I loved to carry it back in my days at the Bundeswehr.
What’s is Rate of fire of MG3?
@@MozrowDrops You could have wrote these exact words in google and you would have gotten an instant answer.
To fast. I once was in a shooting-simulator and tried to knock off a chopper. Aimed, pulled the trigger and did not let go until the helicopter was gone. Afterwards the officer in charge asked me: "You have to teach me some time, how to put 350 rounds to the MG in a single burst without fucking up the barrel... As it was told in the video: There is a real temptation to do this and the shooter has to control himself.
@@psycho4207 guess what obvious joe I didn’t want to do that, I wanted a firsthand account from someone who actually used it every day, instead of it being 1200 RPM like the mg42 it’s around 900 but wanted it to be clarified.
@@MozrowDrops "What’s is Rate of fire of MG3?"
instead of: " what is your experience with the mg3 firerate?"
you see the issue?
The man who has never built a gun made the best one! This is commitment and genius!
Uhhh the Browning M2 has been in service for almost 100 years, the MG42 isn't even close.
What has that to do with the video
Yes but the MG 3 hits his target in a split second with a few rounds the M2 finally hits "a" target (:-))
@@kuunoooo7293 it's been in service much longer meaning it has had more success in it's lifetime. The video is literally called "the most successful machine gun in the world".
@@michaelpielorz9283 this is false, the longest recorded sniper kill in US history for a very long time was done by Carlos "white feather" Hathcock in Vietnam with a Browning M2 with an optic on it.
@@Saved_Sinner0085 why does american gear needs to be better i mean the mg3 / mg42 was very very succesfull even in its shorter lifespan it was prob even or beter than the m2
Wish you had a comparative sound clip between the MG42 or MG3 and some competitors.
I can confirm that the Canadian military doesn't uses any MG 3 variants.
It was tested and evaluated but never acquired.
Good video!
Yes the UK also stayed with the 7.62 gpmg.
sure it was not used on Leopard tanks?
(denmark have replaced the "LMG M/62s" with the american M60E6... except in the tanks)
Ex assault Italian bersagliere here, the MG is the top of the top. I remember the US soldiers that I served with going crazy only looking at it, when they were shoting it they had a huge smile on their faces and wanted more.
It's THE machine gun, when it talks you will listen, that burst, that sound, FRRRRR FRRRRR FRRRRR, how could you forget that.
have you done a video on the beetle? it would be chilling to see a final military version of the beetle with a MG42 mounted on the passenger side
The Kubelwagen was a far better military vehicle as was Schwimmagen, and far more interesting than the rather boring Beetle which thanks to the roof and cab design didn't suit combat. OTOH the Type 181 also saw military service.
Probably not asbestos gloves anymore because of the disease potential of asbestos. More likely Nomex gloves - Nomex is pretty much the standard material used for fire/heat resistance clothing items in the modern era.
In simulation games in which you could choose between the MG 42 and the MG 34, i picked the MG 42 for the fun and the MG 34 for a better kills to spended ammunition ratio. The MG5, the new service multi-purpose Machinegun of the Bundeswehr has far lower fire rates as the MG3.
one small note one the last part, Denmark's army did replace its old MG3 from frontline service (going to the national guard storage I think), replacing it with the M60E6, an improvement on the M60E4 and the latest M60 variant. It won against the HK121 in the Danish Army's GPMG replacement program in March 2014.. A trial that put emphasis on a more lightweight, slower firing modern variant of a already proven machine gun design. As a higher rate of fire requires more ammo to be carried.
How much ammo does one need to carry for 6 hours of expected fighting? ;)
@@KrokLP Denmark has had the most combat losses in afghanistan compared to our population size
@@KrokLP When I used the MG3 in the royal danish army I normally carried around 500-750 rounds myself, not including the 100-150 rounds I had ready in the MG (I'm a big guy). But if you expect a long fight each member of the team of 6-7 men would be carrying at least 750 rounds each. Things might have changed since. But I would like to have at least 1500-2000 rounds ready for a fight.
@@gawkthimm6030 shows how bad the Danish are at War who havent been in real War for centuries lol weak soft gays. I dont wanna see how bad the swedish will fare st the next war against russia and china
During WW2, my father spoke of having to run between bursts of the dreaded Spandau MG 42, which was firing tracers. He had no alternative but to run over a country lane and had to be very careful about his timing. If ever he heard the sound of this dreaded weapon in a tv documentary, he'd say 'A bloody Spandau!'.
The MG-42 was also used occasionally as the basis for blaster rifles in Star Wars.
I think you're thinking of the mg34 if you mean the dlt 19
@@HIFLY01 For what it's worth, IMFDB says it's the MG-42.
Served in Afghanistan and we used the MG3 as a GPMG and never failed.
Also:
Don't show this to Lindybeige... His ego might have a stroke or something...
"Powerful" is an intersting word, considering the existence of the M-2 .50 Bowning, in use for OVER a century.
"it's a machine gun"
I love this weapon. I feel naked without it, and I couldn't care less what we're set up with. I have made sure that my Platoon always have at least 5 functional Rheinmetall MG 3 and plenty of ammo. This weapon is so delightfully lightweight, user friendly and precise, that you become almost invincible in a fluent battlefield situation. Listing the roles I've deployed this weapon in is almost impossible. It's versatility itself. In Norway's mountainous terrain every gram of weight counts. The MG 3 is just right, and you can attack almost any position with it, and you're damn hard to evict when established in a position with enough of these beauties! Mounted on our belted vehicles, it really becomes a heavy puncher, spewing 22 rounds per second. Unfortunately, after many decades of service, the wear on this much loved weapon has forced us to phase them out with FN MAGs and leaving the still functional MG 3s to our 'National Guard' (Heimevernet).
We all know it's the M2 Browning. Stop lying ffs.
The M-2 is a Heavy MG meant for anti-aircraft and anti-light vehicular work. Legally by the Laws of Land Warfare the M-2 is not to be used for anti-personnel roles. However we all know that it has been.
"MA Duece" is in an entirely different class of weapons as this one of this class it may be the best
@@d.l.hemmingway3758 Stop lying and perpetuating a nonsensical myth. You can use any guns of any calibre against any military target. The prohibition against certain weapons only governs things like chemical and biological weapons, blinding lasers, victim-triggered anti-personnel mines (meaning you can only use wired/remote detonation), etc.
@@d.l.hemmingway3758 "Legally by the Laws of Land Warfare the M-2 is not to be used for anti-personnel roles."
That is completely false, stop spreading misinformation, there is no law that prevents the M2 browning from being used against personnel, why would that even be a thing, it would render it useless, what do you think happens when you shoot a vehicle... with personnel inside, the logic behind this myth doesn't even make sense, if it were illegal the US would not have even been "allowed" to have them in Afghanistan against the Taliban, because they had no aircraft and their light vehicles were trucks.
@@d.l.hemmingway3758
Not true. It’s perfectly legal and it’s not a war crime to shoot at people and personnel with a 50 cal. Although the 50 cal is generally considered an anti-material round, the .50 inch caliber doesn’t put it in the auto cannon class. 50 cal is still considered a small arms cartridge. The US puts 50 cal rifles in the hands of highly skilled snipers for extreme long range shots. This isn’t typical though, as the 50 cal isn’t a particularly accurate round. For individual shots, it only has an accuracy of 2 MOA at 100yards. Take that out to 1000 yards and you get a 20 MOA spread. This could be improved with match grade ammo but the US military doesn’t buy 50 cal match grade ammo. Not when 50 cal ammo is 5 dollars a shot or more. The 50 cal isn’t exactly accurate. It usually achieves its abilities by sheer volume of fire. If you put enough rounds out there, you’ll hit something. Only a very exceptionally gifted individual can shoot a 50 at long distance with any expectation of pinpoint accuracy. This is why the US military mainly uses the 300 magnum and 338 Lapua Magnum cartridges for that. They’re way more accurate for anti-personnel work.
It’s not like anybody’s been reprimanded for shooting at people with cannon caliber rounds. I’ve seen Apache helicopters shoot whole groups of enemy soldiers in the open. The same thing goes for Bradleys and the coaxial guns on Abrams tanks.
The MG3 is being replaced in the German Army recently by the MG4 and MG5.
Thats cute.
The M2HB Browning heavy machine gun was effectively unchanged from its interwar configuration until recently,including straight up not having a safety.
It has a safety
it's also not man-portable and an LMG
The most powerful machine gun of WW2? Are you sure?
I suppose if you only look at fire rate. 😂
Depends how you define "powerful". The M2 though it has a way more powerful cartridge has a way lower fire rate, so in the end the MG42 might put more weight of lead down range than the M2 and as learned during the Vietnam war, in the end all that counts are the number of fired shots per square meter.
@@dermozart80 how did you learn that if the side that fired by an order of magnitude more shots lost?
@@dermozart80 I'm not convinced that the American 180 is a particularly powerful machine gun. Insane firing rate, but not really powerful. Power is energy. Kinetic energy is velocity and mass.
I would have to say that the M2 beats out the MG3. Invented in 1918 and still in wide use today. Until the introduction of the M2A1 in 2011, swapping wooden grips with plastic grips was about the only significant design change in almost a century. The M2A1 introduced a new barrel system that allows operators to swap barrels without having to manually tune the guns headspace and timing.
Soviet NSVT 12,7 x108 "Utes" beats M2 by far far!
@@ldkbudda4176 The Utes certainly has the edge on the M2 in a couple functional categories, but I would still have to give the win to the M2 in most use-cases. In what ways would you categorize the Utes as the superior weapon system?
It’s was a shame we went to war with them. We should have joined forces and defeated the Soviets.
Shame we ended an evil person?
Gross.
@@pkwithmeplease Stalin killed way more people that Adolf. Who knows we could prevent it from happening.
True and real and based
Glad that didn't happen. I'm not eager to live in a fascist state.
In WWII, the Germans liked it, but didn't like how fast it burned ammo. Also, it did not have twice the rate of fire of all Browning 1919s. The Aircraft version had a rate of fire of 1200-1500 RPM. Those could have been deployed on the ground, but were, again, decided to use too much ammunition for the same affect.
I remember specifically it was called Hitler's Buzz saw by the allies that were getting shot at as that's what it sounded like the rate of fire and the accuracy was nuts Germany makes excellent weapons always did always will like them or not
3:44 - FYI: It's "fewer strategic resources" not "less strategic resources".
"Less" is only used for uncountable things. So - Less Milk. Less Paint. Less frustration. etc.
But for things which can be counted, we always use "fewer".
"14 items or fewer" is always correct, and "14 items or less" is always wrong.
"Fewer chances to get laid", but "less chance of being caught". Get it?
The phrase "less strategic resources" actually refers to resources which are less strategic than other resources. Just as "Less valuable items" refers to items of lower value while "Fewer valuable items" means a lower number of valuable items.
English is an incredibly powerful and highly descriptive language - but only when used correctly.
I would argue that the Ma Deuce is more successful in that it has been around longer, in in use in more countries, and they have made more of them. But the M3 is an excellent service weapon and probably the most successful medium machine gun.
Was wondering where the browning M2 and the dushka fitted into the picture.
Sometimes, the best stuff comes from someone who hasn't done it before. They get a new and fresh perspective which increases the ability to create something new and inventive.
I would say that the Browning M2 .50 caliber Heavy Machine Gun is the most successful machine gun in the world (up to this point anyway). The Browning M2 is coming up on 100 years old and is still in service almost unchanged in dozens if not hundreds of countries around the globe.
The M2 reached its hundredth year in service last year.
I suppose it depends if you're looking at years in service, numbers produced, or how many countries adopted it.
MG42 is arguably not “the most powerful” MG of World War II. The M2 (.50 Cal) Browning had greater power.
"If the Luftwaffe would have had the Browning 50 caliber, the Battle of Britain would have turned out much differently". - Herman Goering.
Every machine gun in the United States Military from WW1 all through the Korean War were all Browning designs. I would say that is pretty successful.
Well, the designer was a really smart man! He asked the end users what they needed (something too many ignore - especially in the gun-business, but also fashion or tech...often the designers make what they want, instead of what the customer needs -.-), he familiarised himself with the available weapons (during that machine-gun-course he joined, but probably even more so - he probably took them apart etc.) and then he made a weapon that wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel (he made it so that trained machine-gunners would know how it works without much extra instruction except maybe that there is a quick-change barrel!) and he made it simple to produce compared to the other options!
Designs like that can stand the test of time easily, till something radically new comes along (say a coil- or rail-gun if we can figure out how to supply power on the move and make them lighter than current prototypes and have them shoot at higher velocities than what handheld weapons of both types are available right now)...hell, other designs are still around too, from the Browning's designs like the 1911-Pistol (seriously, give it a double stack mag and some picatiny-rail and you have modern handgun, despite the fact that inner workings of the gun are over a century old!), the M2-HMG (sure it changed roles, it was intended to defeat aircraft and even early tanks, but frankly it works fine as a heavy infantry weapons, especially to flush enemies from cover and damage or destroy light vehicles like trucks) etc....to others, hell the Mauser-Action is still the most copied action for a bolt-action-rifle up to this day, sure they now have modular stocks, detachable box-mags, picatiny rail, optics etc. but basically that is still a rifle from over 100 years ago!
What's really impressive is, by 1940 the MG34 was ageing, six years after its introduction. Eight decades on, and the MG42/MG3 has no logical need for replacement - other than to save ammunition.
The logical need to replace it is weight. That's why the MG5 was introduced in the German Army a few years ago.
The infantry version of the MG5 weights 300 g less than the MG3 and is easier to use and it does have a NATO rail which allows to add optics by NATO rail standard.
The double barrel requirement has always been the Achilles heel of this formidable weapon
Actually, there are. Production lines were closed in 1981 (save pakistan). Germany is now using the MG5, arguably a better weapon because it has a handle for the barrel, thus eliminating the asbestos glove, has a true ammo box is also a bit lighter . So this weapon will slowly die, however it will soldier on for quite some time to come.
And this is German Wisdom:
Never fix what ain't broken.
A lesson to live by.