Forgotten Weapons web site


#1

While trying to find a photo of a 37mm gun from the last edition of DAV magazine, I bumped into this interesting web site forgottenweapons.com/page/2/, maybe will be useful to someone at this forum.


#2

Ian McCollum who runs that site does a great job researching, and has a passion for the old and obscure, ranging from small arms to artillery, and their ammunition, but mainly the arms.

I am a paid subscriber, to help support his efforts.

That sort of site (along with the excellent IAA sites) are the sorts of things that attract new collectors, and by focusing on the historical aspects make collecting of this sort of stuff more mainstream and acceptable. This is extremely important in face of the constant negative media attention to our hobbies.

Go check it out now! If you like it, consider helping out financially, as he is trying to do this as a full time job. (Not a route to becoming a millionaire, but probably aheck of a lot more fun than most of us have going to work!)


#3

The worst thing about the FG42 was that it encouraged U.S. army ordnance to develop the M60 machine gun. Jack


#4

Jack - isn’t the M60 based more on the MG42 than the FG42? I know that the MG42 was not gas operated like the M60, but in appearance anyway, the M60 is much more similar to the MG42. I am ashambed to say I forget the method of operation for the Fallschirmjaegergewehr.

I did see some good footage of an FG42 being fired in combat by a German parachutist, obvious from his helmet, at the battle for Monte Casino. The early version must have kicked like the dickens, and I would think the 7.9 x 57 would beat it to pieces. The later, reinforced and enlarged version of the FG must have been better. but I know it never reached any wide-spread general issue.

The M60 is a funny and controversial weapon. I have met combat veterans who were armed with it in VN and loved it. Their opinion was it was a great piece of ordnance. I have met an equal number equally experienced with it, who thought it was a piece of crap and hated it.

I have never fired one, although I have handled them. My last firing experience was as an assistant machinegunner in a weapons platoon. Our squad had to 1919A6 Brownings. They had their problems in handling, but basically were a reliable weapon, and in my opinion, one with a realistic and usefull rate of fire.


#5

John: The FG42 was based in considerable part on the Lewis gun, but with a box magazine rather than the pan feed of the Lewis. At one point U.S. Army ordnance modified an FG42 to use an MG42 type belt feed, and this later evolved into the M60. The Lewis, the FG42, and the M60 share similar bolts and gas systems but different feed systems. I agree with JPeelen that there was an unreasonable fascination (in the U.S. at least) with the FG42. Jack


#6

Jack - thank you for the added information. I know that just appearance is pretty meaningless in gun design. Once I looked at a blueprint of a combat shotgun a friend of mine was designing, and I remarked that the shape was like an FN-FAL and the buttstock and pistol grip identical to it. He looked at me a bit frustrated and said that he was not a buttstock or pistol grip designer, but rather a firearms operating system designer, and why should he waste time making or even drawing new buttstock shapes. The internal design of the weapon was certaining not even remotely similar to the FAL. Point well taken.

I admit to knowing little about machine guns. They have been basically completely illegal for any individual to own in California all of my life, and while I got some experience with the BAR, Browning .30 and M3/M3A1 in the Army, and the TSMG on LE range, I never developed a big interest or knowledge on them because I knew I likely would never own one. My library allows me to look up what I might ever have to know for some reason, on almost any MG or SMG that was actually used (beyond experimentals). But, I get too lazy lately to even look up things like that, since I am not in the profession anymore.