Third Party Press

FG 42 Countdown

Here are some pictures. As some of you suspected, It did come from Bob Landies at OOW. The two full size pictures are from him, the others I took this afternoon. I was particularly pleased to see that the ZF4 is "L" marked. Notice the reweld picture, I queried several of the FG42 collectors that i know and they told me that most of the FG42s in private hands came back as a duffel bag cut individual bringback. Just to check, I measured this one against a WWII GI duffel and it looks like this was the height it needed to have it fit in the bag. They also indicated that capture papers are extremely rare with these as most of these were confiscated if they came to the notice of the Army authorities and suggested most FGs in private hands have a similiar duffel cut somewhere. I'd never heard this before, but upon rerflection, it makes sense to me. According to these references, our Army was extremely interested in examining these and supposedly, the M-60 incorporates some of the features. Anyone ever hear anything similiar to this?

Anyway, this one at least has found a happy home next to its Luft buddies, the Drilling and the MG15 w/ground mount and AA tripod. In two weeks, its going to a private range to see how smoothly it works so that should be interesting enough, correct?

Very nice weapons and thanks for showing....BILL
 
. According to these references, our Army was extremely interested in examining these and supposedly, the M-60 incorporates some of the features. Anyone ever hear anything similiar to this?QUOTE]

Very true...the M-60 is a combination of the features from the FG-42 and the MG-42.

The very first M-60 prototype looks identical to the Fg-42 but as a belt fed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T44.jpg

The triggergroup/pistol grip remained almost identical on the finished product.

A real tribute to the FG-42 design imo.
 
Last edited:
. According to these references, our Army was extremely interested in examining these and supposedly, the M-60 incorporates some of the features. Anyone ever hear anything similiar to this?QUOTE]

Very true...the M-60 is a combination of the features from the FG-42 and the MG-42.

The very first M-60 looks identical to the Fg-42 but as a belt fed weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T44.jpg

The triggergroup/pistol grip remained almost identical on the finished product.

A real tribute to the FG-42 design imo.

The T52E3 was the last in a long line of prototypes built by the US between 1944 and 1957, it would finally be adopted by the US Army in 1957 as the M60 light machine gun. It’s predecessors the T24 and the later T44 had been stepping stones leading to the T5. It retains the MG42 and FG42s influences with the inline butt stock and top hinged receiver.

We really just reverse engineered them.......
 

Attachments

  • t52e3cover.jpg
    t52e3cover.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 39
  • t5.jpg
    t5.jpg
    207 KB · Views: 56
  • t5-1.jpg
    t5-1.jpg
    202.6 KB · Views: 42
  • t5-3.jpg
    t5-3.jpg
    207 KB · Views: 42
  • t5-2.jpg
    t5-2.jpg
    198.7 KB · Views: 38
  • t5-4.jpg
    t5-4.jpg
    183.5 KB · Views: 36
  • t5-5.jpg
    t5-5.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 32
  • t52.jpg
    t52.jpg
    46.1 KB · Views: 46
  • t52-1.jpg
    t52-1.jpg
    85.1 KB · Views: 34
  • t52-2.jpg
    t52-2.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 35
  • t52-3.png
    t52-3.png
    154.8 KB · Views: 29
  • t52-4.jpg
    t52-4.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:
The T52E3 was the last in a long line of prototypes built by the US between 1944 and 1957, it would finally be adopted by the US Army in 1957 as the M60 light machine gun. It’s predecessors the T24 and the later T44 had been stepping stones leading to the T5. It retains the MG42 and FG42s influences with the inline butt stock and top hinged receiver.

We really just reverse engineered them.......

The U.S Army should have just stuck with the clone of the MG42, mixing the two together was not a good idea. The M60 machine gun was not a good gun.

HDH.
 
The U.S Army should have just stuck with the clone of the MG42, mixing the two together was not a good idea. The M60 machine gun was not a good gun.

HDH.

Actually I dont think the combination of the FG-42 & the MG-42 influences were the problems..I think it was the americanized influences that were a lot of the problem. The changes to the barrel swaping procedure,making the front sight integral to the barrel,cheezy receiver cover and feed tray durability, required use of duct tape and zip ties on some of the latching areas...etc,etc...i.e...trying to re-invent the wheel.
 
Actually I dont think the combination of the FG-42 & the MG-42 influences were the problems..I think it was the americanized influences that were a lot of the problem. The changes to the barrel swaping procedure,making the front sight integral to the barrel,cheezy receiver cover and feed tray durability, required use of duct tape and zip ties on some of the latching areas...etc,etc...i.e...trying to re-invent the wheel.

Yeah I agree but It still would have been better to stick with the 42, It worked and it still works unlike the 60.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/06/bundeswehr-mg3kws-upgrade-program/
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top