Smgguns fg42

Since Rick is a forum member, I though I might get him to give the forum a rundown on his FG42 semi-auto project. I've seen them in person and they are cool, perhaps he'll post some photos for us too.

Did I also see that you considered making a semi-auto VG1-5? THAT would be a great project!!!

Hi mrfarb,
I would love too but I would rather cut and paste from the ones now lost to the GK43 place.... lol That is my whine. Maybe I can just answer specific questions or cut and paste from our website.

And I would consider making about anything where sales would justify the time/investment. Right now the type I FG42 is the one getting my spare time - what there is of it. And yes, as I have said before, unless beaten to the punch by another manufacturer or stopped in our tracks by legislation we are going to build that rifle. Too many reasons "to" do it vs reasons "not" to. In both 8mm and .308 of course.

Had really wanted to do the stg45 for a number of reasons including cost/development but probably won't as so many of our customers are re-enacters and that rifle was not ever issued so.... And the hard core collectors that might still buy would want the full tilt roller delay action ala stg45(m) which would cost a lot more than the roller locked/gas unlock of the basic first stg45 which for the potential sales vs development time/money to make it a reliable shooter make it a non starter.

Same problems to some extent with the VG15. How many might we sell if it were only as close to the original as our FG? I wish I knew and then I could plan. My thoughts on the VG15 and the stg45 were along the lines of a much lower sales price due to ease of manufacture in comparison to the FG but if sales are still small due to lack of interest / whatever then it is still a no go.

And the rifle that everyone wants us to make - the MP44 - is too costly from a metal stamping tooling perspective for the estimated sales left for that rifle. That said I am always interested in others ideas. I do know that when we started the FG project many said, among other things, that even if we got it running "who did we think would buy them". I was pretty sure about that one but still many questions on the "next project"

Rick

SMGGuns.

Great to see you over here now too.

It is a shame about the G43 Forum, and all of our lost info/posts/pics, etc.....

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the progression of your FG42 project on the other Forum.

It's too bad licensing costs and red tape are such a huge hindrance in the firearms industry, as many of us in Canada would love to have your product up here north of the 49th parallel...

Maybe someday, I will be able to live out my fantasy of taking Whitetail with a Type 2 FG42.... someday....

Yes, a lot of info lost on that forum. It's a shame what was done to you guys in regards to that, but considering what happened to others in the past I'm not at all shocked. The reason noboby saw/heard anything was they always cleaned up the mess quickly and quietly when they pulled shenanigans. I know, i got treated badly.

As to making semi-auto VG1-5 rifles, I think there is more of a market than you know. Collectors would buy one just to hang on the wall. If they were $2500-3500 they would sell if you put as much attention to detail as you did with the FG42, and repro mags are plentiful.

As to making a Type1, not sure but I suspect that it would only take sales from your current rifle you make. You could make a cosmetic attempt, a stamped metal buttplate and redesigned grip assembly that would outwardly resemble the Type1, and relocate the bipod (I know easy to say) but use your current receiver. Is the receiver that much different? I know one was stamped and one milled, but outwardly and design wise weren't they similar? I guess the purist won't allow an easier mod like that.

Bang, I will post other shots soon.



This one is one of the first 20 with the mg42 barrel, I had some FTF problems with it but Rick fixed me up. The Rifle is now good to go 500 rounds later.





M.

Desert_Faux, yes we would love to sell into your fine country but until we grow enough to pay the fees etc....

mrfarb, we might look at the VG15, and your point of lost sales is a good one - I have worried some about that one. I did initially look into a "fast track" type I utilizing as much of the type II stuff as possible. But even just scaling up a dedicated type I receiver to accept the type II bolt etc will ruin it - even for us as it will grow the rifle too big and it will no longer have that diminutive "that can't possibly shoot 8mm" look that I think is so cool.

Model, yes the first rifles were darn near hand mad in many respects and we were still doing minor tweeks. Thanks for hanging in there!

There will be variations from original of course but the plan here is when it comes to exterior looks you are going to need a real one for side by side. Amazing how little difference there is in size between say the bolt dia's but man what an overall impact it makes! And when looking at the cost of the stamping dies for the buttstock - 4 pieces of stampings with all the supporting hardware - if you are going to invest THAT kind of money to do it then......

The prototypes will not have the stamped buttstock and none will until we see the interest level first. If I told you how much it will cost for the stamping dies for those 4 parts alone - even buying hundreds - well, you would not believe me. The Shoei type I buttstock is solid aluminum...... And no, the "other" company did not have the buttstocks made at the time the plug was pulled. Not many options.

Rick

My FG42 number 34

I am a new member on the Forum so this will be my first post. I received my FG42 from Rick a couple of weeks ago and it is a work of art. It captures the sprit of the FG42 and is very well made. I have been down sick with a bad case of the Shingles (did not know that chickenpox could come back in a worst version) and have not been able to shoot it, but have had it apart and have played with it a bit. It is a really fine piece of workmanship. Harry

messerschmittfan said:

I am a new member on the Forum so this will be my first post. I received my FG42 from Rick a couple of weeks ago and it is a work of art. It captures the sprit of the FG42 and is very well made. I have been down sick with a bad case of the Shingles (did not know that chickenpox could come back in a worst version) and have not been able to shoot it, but have had it apart and have played with it a bit. It is a really fine piece of workmanship. Harry

Click to expand...

If you get a chance post a few photos Harry!

mrfarb said:

If you get a chance post a few photos Harry!

Click to expand...

YES !!! - Post some gun porn. Anyone who buys one of these will be quite pleased. I am in the process of gathering funds for the Type 1. Hopefully it will come out.

New FG42 parts

Just wanted to share a few pics of parts as they are made. There are more but these are a good start on a major part. What might they be? One - the larger - is a FG42 type II bolt on it's way to heat treat. The other won't fit the type II as it is too small - but it is also made from 9310 - and also on it's way to heat treat.......

Extractors are the same but different. Maybe a part to a new toy!

And while it may appear but a small difference it makes a BIG overall difference!

smgguns said:

Just wanted to share a few pics of parts as they are made. There are more but these are a good start on a major part. What might they be? One - the larger - is a FG42 type II bolt on it's way to heat treat. The other won't fit the type II as it is too small - but it is also made from 9310 - and also on it's way to heat treat.......

Extractors are the same but different. Maybe a part to a new toy!

And while it may appear but a small difference it makes a BIG overall difference!

Click to expand...

Smaller...? Hmmm... Me thinks it's a Type 1 part !!!

M60 range video and instructional film

Hickok45 just posted a high definition M60 E6 range video. I'm not sure he's entirely familiar with the conceptual origins of the M60.
Compare bolt and buffer assembly to an FG42 and you'll see where the inspiration came from. Add some MG34/MG42 belt feed and barrel change features to the FG42 and voila, there's your M60.


Also, take a look at this instructional video showing the internals of the Vietnam era M60 during operation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pULrOj8T5r0

GunKraut said:

Hickok45 just posted a high definition M60 E6 range video. I'm not sure he's entirely familiar with the conceptual origins of the M60.
Compare bolt and buffer assembly to an FG42 and you'll see where the inspiration came from. Add some MG34/MG42 belt feed and barrel change features to the FG42 and voila, there's your M60.

Also, take a look at this instructional video showing the internals of the Vietnam era M60 during operation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pULrOj8T5r0

Click to expand...

Yes and having used the M60 MG in the 1960s, as an Infantry soldier, let me say it was a problem child, that required constant maintenance, suffered high parts breakage and was prone to double feeds.
The firing pin could be installed backwards and the gun reassembled just fine. The fire-control assembly was held to the gun with a single spring. If knocked around on brush or your LBE, it could result in the entire trigger group falling out. The nut that held the gas system to the weapon would back out and fall off in extended firing, which was fixed in the field by the use of safety wire. This further slowed down barrel changes as each fresh barrel had its own gas system, that had to be installed at the same time the barrel was installed.

Other than that it was just dandy.

GunKraut said:

Compare bolt and buffer assembly to an FG42 and you'll see where the inspiration came from. Add some MG34/MG42 belt feed and barrel change features to the FG42 and voila, there's your M60.

Click to expand...

The first prototype "M60" (the T44) was literally an FG42 with an MG42 top cover grafted on. The FG42 action was almost directly copied, and the final M60 design even included the extra firing pin spring which was necessary for FG42 semi-auto function but served no purpose whatsoever for the full auto only M60.

They should have just copied the MG42 and slowed down the cyclic rate like the Bundesheer did.

DaveDavis said:

Yes and having used the M60 MG in the 1960s, as an Infantry soldier, let me say it was a problem child, that required constant maintenance, suffered high parts breakage and was prone to double feeds.
The firing pin could be installed backwards and the gun reassembled just fine. The fire-control assembly was held to the gun with a single spring. If knocked around on brush or your LBE, it could result in the entire trigger group falling out. The nut that held the gas system to the weapon would back out and fall off in extended firing, which was fixed in the field by the use of safety wire. This further slowed down barrel changes as each fresh barrel had its own gas system, that had to be installed at the same time the barrel was installed.

Other than that it was just dandy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, ain't that something. They combined one near perfect weapon and one fairly good weapon and ended up with something that was marginal all around. Talk about creating the worst of both worlds. Misunderstanding the inner workings of the FG42 being another problem: the M60 "designers" maintained the secondary firing pin spring of FG42 without ever figuring out this spring was only needed for firing from a closed bolt in semi-auto, a mode of operation impossible with the M60 because it lacked select fire option. I guess they called it "the pig" for more than one reason.

Ooops, I just noticed Ryan already mentioned this. I need to learn to type faster...

You should have seen the M73 coax developed for the M60 series tank. It was a dog from day one. Instead of admitting it was a complete failure. They "improved " it with the M73A1 later called the M 219 [it was the same gun ] .

The M73 suffered from constant malfunctions. An improved M73E1 was eventually developed in 1970 with a simplified ejection system, being type classified as the Machine Gun, 7.62-MM, M73A1. In 1972, it was decided that this weapon was sufficiently different from its predecessor and was redesignated Machine Gun, 7.62-MM, M219. It suffered the same problems as the original M73 despite the Army spending millions to "IMPROVE " functioning. 3 - 5 rounds down range and it jammed every time.


Serously, these were just absolute pieces of shite, and were finally replaced on our tanks by the M240 [ a copy of the Belgium Mag58 ]

http://world.guns.ru/machine/usa/m73-m219-tank-machine-gun-e.html


We designed and built some KLASSIC shite weapons in the 1950s - 1960s

Was that one of the main reason it was nicknamed the "Pig" Dave? I also remembered a good friend of mine jumped with one of those weapons back in the 80s alot. Told me "that thing almost killed me once."

We never called it a PIG //// big, heavy, awkward, delicate, prone to double feeds, and a pain in the a$$ to hump. There was no easy or comfortable way to carry it . It could produce a good base of fire, but it was, in general, when compared to other proven & available MGs, a flawed design from it's inception.

I left the Infantry and moved to Armor branch, when I made the Army my career, because you rode to war and the only weapon you carried on your person was a 1911A1