USMC Stinger .30-06 Machine Gun

[Braith-Wafer]

This modded AN/M2 .30 Cal fired up to 1,200/1,400 RPM putting the MG42/3 to shame. It was modded by Cpl Tony Stien of the USMC.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1124/anm2stingerqi0.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3578/stinger3006dn7.jpg

[Reloader]

Unusual, but it's an ugly-looking thing, isn't it? :confused:

[Hollis]

Unusual, but it's an ugly-looking thing, isn't it? :confused:


LOL, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder, it is a modified Browning MG. Pretty amazing it can but the rate of fire that high, because of how a Browning works.

I built one in a semi auto matic configuration. It is not light by any standards.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/DSCN0053.jpg

[SuperSLime]

This modded AN/M2 .30 Cal fired up to 1,200/1,400 RPM putting the MG42/3 to shame. It was modded by Cpl Tony Stien of the USMC.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1124/anm2stingerqi0.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3578/stinger3006dn7.jpg

Yes, the MG42's massive superiority in weight, ergonomics and ease of barrel change is totally cancelled out because it can only fire, depending on the bolt fitted, 1,200 or 1,500 rounds per minute.

Oh wait...

You Tango Whiskey Alfa Tango.

[Hollis]

I think the statement on the MG42 was off. It is the basis, my understanding, of the M60MG. This is my MG42, it is a semi auto config, though.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/MG42.jpg

[SuperSLime]

I think the statement on the MG42 was off. It is the basis, my understanding, of the M60MG.


The M60 took some ideas from the MG42 and some from the FG42, then made a few up. It's a constant source of amazement how someone could start with two excellent weapons and come up with that clunker.

How tricky was it converting an MG42 to semi-auto? The original design was automatic only, wasn't it? I take it you had to add a few bits!

[Hollis]

A new grip had to be made, it uses the M16 fire group.

Edited to add, yes is was full auto only. The one I have is from WWII.

The bolt is re-worked because a open bolt is unlawful to own. So the bolt is made to take a long firing pin, a skirt is added to hold the recoil spring out of the way of the hammer. The recoil spring is also shortened. It would have been much easier to do, if it was a close bolt system to begin with.

the 1919 is much easier to convert, because it is a close bolt system.

Finished it looks like:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/MR42wTP.jpg

[Braith-Wafer]

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/500/FG42_Belt-Fed.JPG

[SuperSLime]

It's a nice looking gun though. It has that real "Cross of Iron" look sitting there on the tripod.

[SuperSLime]

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/500/FG42_Belt-Fed.JPG

No, I don't think so. Look at the position of the feed cover. The belt is going to get all snagged in the hand you operate the weapon with.

Been playing with Photoshop again?

[Braith-Wafer]

Not this time
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=127871
http://armm.planetrainbowsix.gamespy.com/nato3/nato3_manual/saws.htm

Quote:

The M60 machine gun is a lightweight, air-cooled, disintegrating metallic link-belt fed, portable machine gun designed for ground operations. It was developed to replace the Browning M1917 and M1919-series of MGs. Two German WWII weapons heavily influenced the M60’s design: the MG42 and the FG42. After the war, the US Ordnance Corps decided to try and convert the FG42 automatic rifle into a belt-fed version. Taking a very direct approach, the belt feed mechanism of the MG42 was grafted onto the side of a FG42G rifle. Testing of the T44 started in December 1946, and quickly proved what the Germans already knew about the FG42...it was simply too light for sustained full-auto fire.

In April 1947, the improved T52 was introduced. The feed mechanism was moved from the left side of the receiver to the top. With later variants, a quick-change barrel system was developed, with fixed headspace and timing. This permitted the rapid change of barrels to prevent overheating during sustained fire. In contrast, the earlier Browning MG designs required headspace adjustment each time the barrel was changed. The gas system was changed to a short-stroke/tappet piston based on the 'constant volume' system. Ideally, this system would not require adjustment of the gas port.

In April 1951, a competing weapon was introduced, the T161. While similar to the T52, the T161 was designed with advanced mass production techniques in mind. By August 1956, the T161E3 had beaten out the T52E5, and on January 30, 1957, the T161E3 was standardized as the M60.

[SuperSLime]

Not this time
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=127871
http://armm.planetrainbowsix.gamespy.com/nato3/nato3_manual/saws.htm

Ah, so DragunovSVD photoshopped it.

The gun in that image is NOT usable.

[Stoats]

That one was a concept model, a bodched FG42 with a belt feed. I can only assume that for firing purposes somebody had to stand above it and pull on the belt. It was never intended to be a production weapon, but was the first that to creating the abortion that was the M60

[SuperSLime]

That one was a concept model, a bodched FG42 with a belt feed. I can only assume that for firing purposes somebody had to stand above it and pull on the belt. It was never intended to be a production weapon, but was the first that to creating the abortion that was the M60

I suppose that picture explains the mentality of someone who would rob bits of the MG42 design to create a badly laid out, unreliable POS instead of simply copying it.

[Hollis]

Super, could be some read about "Fulton's Folly", that there is a possibility that how bad it looks on paper, it just maybe the next best thing.

Also, people in search of having something totally unique will do strange things to stuff,

Ferrari in to a 4 wheel drive mud racer

A pick up in to a low hung flat track racer.

[SuperSLime]

Also, people in search of having something totally unique will do strange things to stuff.

I'd like to think, though, that the designers of the US Army's standard GPMG had something else in mind than "having something totally unique."

[Stoats]

I suppose that picture explains the mentality of someone who would rob bits of the MG42 design to create a badly laid out, unreliable POS instead of simply copying it.


Initially, they did copy the MG 42, but forgot that 30-06 (7.62 x 63) is significantly longer than 8 mm Mauser (7.92 x 57), so wondered why it didn't work quite so well . Also, some bright spark put the bolt in upside down on the prototype and jammed it solid, which gave them the flimsy excuse to drop it and design their own abortion based on robbing enough random bits from other weapons that they could claim it was their own design. funny how they ended up with the Belgian MAG in the end about 40 years after the rest of the free world...

Never underestimate the power of "not invented here" (and the sometimes even more important "not invented at Springfield armoury") which infested American arms procurement until the 1980s

[03Fox2/1]

Gentleman,
As has already been mentioned, the "stinger" was not an official weapon issued or produced for mass consumption, although with hindsight, it should have been. It was the invention of a very talented and brave young Marine by the name of Tony Stein. Corporal Tony Stein, fomerly a toolmaker in North Dayton, Ohio, took an air-cooled machine gun that he had taken from a wrecked Navy fighter plane in the Hawaiian Islands and made it into a hand weapon. Later, when Corporal Stein landed on Iwo Jima on February 19, 1945 with Company A, 1st Battalion, 28th Marines, Fifth Marine Division, he was armed with this home-made weapon. Exposing himself fearlessly to seek out enemy positions, Stein covered his platoon's advance with torrents of fire. Because of the extraordinary high rate of fire, he was able to gain fire superiority but this also meant that he was constantly running out of ammunition. Each time his ammunition ran out, he stripped off his encumbering gear, including his helmet and shoes, found a wounded comrade and helped him back to the beach, grabbed more ammunition, and returned on the run to the front. His singlehanded attacks accounted for at least twenty of the enemy. For this action, Corporal Tony Stein was put in for the Medal of Honor but it was sadly awarded posthumously, because two weeks after this action, on March 1st, 1945, Corporal Stein was killed in action on Iwo Jima. He was one of 27 recipients of the Medal of Honor award earned by Marines and Sailors in the battle of Iwo Jima. Corporal Stein's ingenuity and ability to improvise was responsible for a weapon of significance that was not fully appreciated before his death. The bravery of Corporal Stein illustrates the importance of the man behind the weapon, always the deciding factor instead of caliber or rate of fire.
Semper Fi

http://www.medalofhonor.com/tonystein.htm

[Reloader]

I have seen a televised dramatisation of Corporal Stein's actions with the weapon, which were amazing.