Gun Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This monster of a machine gun should be brought back no matter how old it is, It is light in weight around 6ish kilos, Smaller than most GPMGs and has an ROF around 1,500RPM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

If it was to be brought back, It should be rebarreled to either 7.62/5.56 NATO.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
How often did you have to change the barrel on the MG81? After every belt?

I'm more curious about how that MG42 next to it shot.
 

·
Annihilator
Joined
·
4,782 Posts
After every belt!? That can't be right! Unless the belt is like 2,000 rounds or something! That'd be a terribly innefficient design of that's true.

I almost bought a dummy MG81 a long ass time ago just to sort of have around the house for decoration. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I meant because of heat, not wear.

The biggest drawback to the high rate of fire was that the barrels would heat up very quickly, but the engineers thought of that. The MG81 (and the MG42 shown next to it) had incredibly simple and fast methods for changing barrels; the standard kit included a second barrel as well as an asbestos lined mitt.

There's a scene in Saving Private Ryan where they're attacking an MG42 emplacement and Tom Hanks' character instructs his men to not make the final rush against the position until the MG crew has to change their barrel. This leads me to guess that standard practice was to rotate barrels after maybe 150 rds of continous fire (since I'm guessing that's about 3 belts of 50 each).

Granted, my knowledge comes from reading books and watching documentaries.
 

·
Negative Nancy
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
ServoCrow said:
I meant because of heat, not wear.

The biggest drawback to the high rate of fire was that the barrels would heat up very quickly, but the engineers thought of that. The MG81 (and the MG42 shown next to it) had incredibly simple and fast methods for changing barrels; the standard kit included a second barrel as well as an asbestos lined mitt.

There's a scene in Saving Private Ryan where they're attacking an MG42 emplacement and Tom Hanks' character instructs his men to not make the final rush against the position until the MG crew has to change their barrel. This leads me to guess that standard practice was to rotate barrels after maybe 150 rds of continous fire (since I'm guessing that's about 3 belts of 50 each).

Granted, my knowledge comes from reading books and watching documentaries.
150 8mm continuous is a LOT of heat. my guess is that there wasn't a set number of rounds, but rather once the barrel started miraging. also, the barrels can be changed with a belt in the gun afaik.
 

·
Annihilator
Joined
·
4,782 Posts
ServoCrow said:
I meant because of heat, not wear.

The biggest drawback to the high rate of fire was that the barrels would heat up very quickly, but the engineers thought of that. The MG81 (and the MG42 shown next to it) had incredibly simple and fast methods for changing barrels; the standard kit included a second barrel as well as an asbestos lined mitt.

There's a scene in Saving Private Ryan where they're attacking an MG42 emplacement and Tom Hanks' character instructs his men to not make the final rush against the position until the MG crew has to change their barrel. This leads me to guess that standard practice was to rotate barrels after maybe 150 rds of continous fire (since I'm guessing that's about 3 belts of 50 each).

Granted, my knowledge comes from reading books and watching documentaries.
I know its because of heat and not wear... But it amazes me that a barrel can heat up so fast that it requires changing after only 150 rounds!? Hell, even 1000 rounds!

I guess modern technology has really stepped that up. can you imagine if out gunners in Iraq had to change barrels every 150 rounds on the 50 cal machine guns? Or hell, and machine gun?! That would suck so badly.

The MG users def had a disadvantage like you stated... I understand that even current rifles require a barrel change, but not to the extent of the MG! :huh:
 

·
Negative Nancy
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
brucelee said:
I know its because of heat and not wear... But it amazes me that a barrel can heat up so fast that it requires changing after only 150 rounds!? Hell, even 1000 rounds!

I guess modern technology has really stepped that up. can you imagine if out gunners in Iraq had to change barrels every 150 rounds on the 50 cal machine guns? Or hell, and machine gun?! That would suck so badly.

The MG users def had a disadvantage like you stated... I understand that even current rifles require a barrel change, but not to the extent of the MG! :huh:
it hasn't changed as much as you think. i know that 150 rounds quickly through an M4 = cookoff. open bolt guns just allow you to run a hotter barrel, but they still heat VERY fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Like I said, I'm not a historian, but some of the key stats to look at is rate of fire and weight:
MG81 ~ 15 lbs, M2 ~ 80 lbs
MG81 ~ 25 rds per sec, M2 ~ 8 rds per sec

Granted, the MGs used the smaller 7.62 cartridge, but the M2 has more than 5 times the mass to absorb and dispate that heat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,393 Posts
Barrels are better now. They are made of better metals and hence stand up better to heat. The standardization we see in metal is really a post war invention. Hell even an m60 can now shoot thousands of 7.62 NATO rounds CONTINUUSLY without barrel meltdown.
 

·
Negative Nancy
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
Adler said:
Barrels are better now. They are made of better metals and hence stand up better to heat. The standardization we see in metal is really a post war invention. Hell even an m60 can now shoot thousands of 7.62 NATO rounds CONTINUUSLY without barrel meltdown.
and don't forget the reliability! they're up to 3 rounds between cleanings and only 2 hours to reassemble correctly!

i keed i keed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,393 Posts
The M60 is wretched....you will never convince me otherwise. I dont know what the hell was wrong with the MAG 58 before, or even using an MG3
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,393 Posts
Didn't stop us from using the Krag Jorgenson, the Chauchaut, the 1853 Enfield, the Browning A5 shotgun, the Hotchkiss machine gun, and the 98 Mauser(we just called it the 1903)
 

·
Negative Nancy
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
Adler said:
Didn't stop us from using the Krag Jorgenson, the Chauchaut, the 1853 Enfield, the Browning A5 shotgun, the Hotchkiss machine gun, and the 98 Mauser(we just called it the 1903)
none of those were in the McCarthy era either =p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,393 Posts
McCarthy was shamed out of power in 1954 after the Army hearing blew up in his face and he was censured before the M60 was adopted in 1957. If you want to blame the "American is better attitude" then you really should look toward the people in ordnance, but mostly then Chief of Staffs Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor. Ridgway delayed the adoption of the FAL as a NATO wide weapon and basically told European allies to fuck off both as Commander of Europe and Chief of Staff while ordnance finalized the T44, later the M14. When he chose Maxwell Taylor to replace him in 1957 the mindset continued. Atleast with the M14, it was relatively close to the FAL in performance and reliability. The M60 blew dogs for nickels compared to the gun it replaced, and the MG3, and the Mag 58.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top