Do the materials/alloys exist to be able to upscale the MG42's high speed roller mechanism to fire 50 caliber rounds at...

Correction: it can go up to 1300/1400 depending on wear of the gun, heat and dirtyness.

We have the M60, which was heavily based on the MG42.

>> had more money and resource to throw at the wacky wall and see what stuck?
They did the wacky stuff (as did all nations--my favorite was the British SOE exploding rats), but the main reason was massive industrial capacity.

>>electrically powered M2
How does that work? M2 is gas operated. It's not really the same gun anymore if they make it electric.

You are right about the pressure, but that's not really the concern here. As the ROF of an automatic weapon increases the speed at which the bolt must move back and forth becomes very high, and the parts must be strong enough to withstand the incredibly high acceleration as the bolt travels forward and backward. It's not bursting the chamber with pressure that's the problem, it's having the reciprocating parts stay in one piece.

No way around it. Lighter bolts, stiffer springs.

You are 45 years too late user...

Attached: IMG_20190325_214451_571.jpg (720x1280, 133K)

The bolt mass is the real problem. Its inertia is the dominant factor in determining the cyclic rate. OP is asking for a bolt that is both substantially lighter than the standard MG42 bolt (to get the higher ROF), AND is large enough to accommodate the much larger .50 BMG cartridge. That's tough.

Hell, it might not even be possible: the higher mass of the .50 BMG cartridge alone might fuck you over. It may be that the only way to do it is to throw more power at the problem, but then you've deviated from the MG42 design onto something like a rotary cannon, chain gun, etc.

I think the best way to do this would be like those Soviet aircraft guns or the American competitor to the minigun back in the day (sorry, I can't recall their names) which used two barrels. The force from firing the round in one barrel was used to chamber the next round in the other barrel. This kind of design requires no electricity or hydraulic power, is capable of exceeding even a rotary cannon's cyclic rate, and is mechanically very simple. It's not an MG42 but it's certainly a compact, high ROF, machine gun design that could easily be built in .50 BMG.

Suely that can't be true. The .50 has more energy, that's more than enough compensates for a larger bolt. Just make the bolt out of titanium or superalloy

Plus a lighter shorter barrel, which will do two things: increase the speed of the bolt and reduce the time it takes for gas pressure to fall, allowing the bolt to unlock from the barrel sooner.

For helos US also has fast firing .50s. Wonder if there the same gat

the M3 was used in some really early jets and post-war props as well, link related
globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m3.htm

This one?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23

>oversight
>implying

GSh-23L

>Can we make an MG42 in .50 BMG?
>Yes, but only if we make it a twin barreled design
MUH DICK

They probably are.
No germans arms manufacturer builds any sort of the M2.
All the M2s and derivates that Germany uses are either American or Belgian made, the latter then by FN Herstal afaik.

Also if you search for the M3M, perhaps in combination with "Bundeswehr", you can find some footage of it beeing fired.

Anyone know where I can find precise measurements and photographs of an Ultra ShKAS?
>tfw no 3000rpm submachinegun derivative

That's one of them, yes. It's not the only one. I can't recall the name, but there was a twin barrel machine gun (not a Gast design like the Russians used) which was built in small numbers and tested before the US adopted the Minigun. If I recall correctly it was found to be superior to the minigun in every way, except that it would cease firing if a dud round was encountered, whereas the mingun will just extract the whole round and keep on firing. Otherwise it had a higher ROF, it was smaller, required no power from the helo, no spoolup time, etc.

But then you have to ask yourself Why? At 2000 rpm and a larger cartridge it's not a performance increase over 1200 rpm at the cost of more ammo and larger ammo used. A 60% increase in ammo consumption would not make it 60% better at suppression fire. And the It's a successful weapon because it sat at a sweet spot in output, human capability and logistics. Comparing the .50 BMG (12.7×99mm NATO) versus the 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridges you can see the higher firing rates and larger cartridge would make it unwieldy in a infantry role.

That would be the "Heligun", designed by Hughes.

IIRC they built 7.62 and 20mm versions.

Attached: heligun.jpg (2600x880, 246K)

>But then you have to ask yourself Why?
Why not?
It's like Maus or Ratte, it's completely fucking useless for it's intended role, but holy fuck would i be nice to have on.

>But then you have to ask yourself Why?
Well, I want to know why lots of European nation states are choosing to use GPMG's like the MG3 as vehicle mounts rather than opting to mount the superior M2 on everything like we do.

They're going to encounter the same problems that made the original MG42 gunners envious of our M2. The ability to penetrate light armor and cover with ease. M2 uses less ammunition for the same if not better effectiveness than the MG3.

Attached: 250px-Norwegian_soldier_-_Battle_Griffin_2005.jpg (250x146, 16K)

Probably the costs, it's cheaper to just mass produce one gun for multiple purposes than have separate ones.
Which is kid of dumb when it comes to vehicle MGs but you gotta roll with what you got.

Fun fact most of the receivers for m242 bushmaster 25mm guns are marked hughs helicopters from the 70's and 80's.

I bet the "not invented here!" argument would have stopped the project anyway...

>M2 is gas operated
What??

Attached: 1546559786352.jpg (750x1334, 85K)

It's not gas operated in the literal sense. I meant that it does not require an external power source, it is powered entirely from the energy contained within its ammunition. The other guy seemed to be talking about something with an electric motor, and that has nothing to do with the M2.

what book??

Attached: 1524472749149.jpg (2500x1623, 960K)

Because the MG3 can be carried and operated on and by foot soldiers.
If necesarry even by one guy alone.

That might nit make sense on vehicles at first but bear in mind, mist or rather all european militarys do not have the funds to aquire all kinds of MGs for whatever reasons in addition to technical know how, supply lines etc.

So most of them just go for a GPMG because it's overall cheaper and less people to train on specific shit.

Also the reason could be that most if the eurooean Armor is made by germany, and german Armor mostly uses the MG3 by default as a onboard Mashinegun.

But that's changing now that the Puma for example comes with a MG4 or MG5.
The Boxer usually has a GMG or M2 as well, but that depends on what version is beeing used anyways.

It is. US adopted it as the GAU-21. I've gotten to fire one out the back of an Osprey and it was fucking awesome.

jesus h christ

>M60 heavily based on the MG42
get the fuck of my board right now
The M60 was the feeding mechanism of the MG42, the rest was a FG42, you fucknuggets even kept the spring you need to make it semi auto
DESPITE THE GUN ONLY ALLOWING FULL AUTO

So to turn things around, what about a 5.56 mg42, or some other tiny bullet? The rounds are smaller do the bolt and rollers can be super light. Having a full size barrell would help with cooling.
Yes, there's the mg4 but it's not setup for maximum rate of fire.