Controversial Topic: Gun Control in the US

Post Reply New Topic

The problem with the German MG42 machine gun was overheating of the barrel due to the high rate of fire.But a new version of the MG42, the MG3, has effectively solved that problem using a shorter barrel with a chromium inner lining.
Machine guns are used in war mainly for ambush and suppressive fire. The more bullets hitting the target per unit time, the more damage is inflicted on the target since each bullet exerts an impact force and more bullest/unit time means a greater cumulative impact force on the target. This is very useful in attacking armored targets and vehicles. The M134 minigun and the Russian GShK-7.62 have both proven themselves to be devastatingly effective weapons on the battlefield. Russian built Mi-24 HIND helicopters with GShK-7.62 mowed down terrorists in the Soviet-Afghan war and in the Angolan civil war(when used against western backed anti-communist UNITA rebels).

As for companies selling miniguns to civilians in absence of laws against it and a government to enforce those laws.....well DUHHHH!

You're going to need a gun for when comrade Obama imposes his martial law on us. You'll get practice this coming summer if you live in the southwest states.

If not, then you can just go to a FEMA camp and be "re educated." I think I'd rather die

Operation Jade Helm 15 (look it up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rcise.html ). The U.S. military is attempting to stage a "Realistic Military Training" from July 15 to Sept. 15 in 10 states surrounding the Four Corners region (and Mississippi and Florida) where Texas and Utah are considered "hostile." Apparently, the military would consider its operation a failure if too many of its "hostile actors" dressed in civilian clothing are detected by the general public (in other words, the training is a test to determine how watchful the public is if a real invasion occurred; what it calls "Master[ing] the Human Domain"). And, such a mock invasion includes willing private-property owners and businesses who might not inform their customers of pending armed drills (think of it, you are sitting in a cafe with your friends and BOOM, the cafe is overtaken by seemingly plain-clothed people who then fire weapons using blank ammunition to test your responses). So, I plan to note, photograph and report every suspicious behavior that I see to my local law-enforcement agencies and news media just to add to the failure of this exercise.

What possible training benefit could come from the U.S. military "invading" its own states if only as a pretense; and for TWO MONTHS?

Making Texas and Utah "hostile" areas is a completely provocative and stupid idea. Among the most armed states in the nation, all it would take to touch off a "real" event is for somebody somewhere to have not "read the Tweet," and, while witnessing a "mock" skirmish at a cafe, responds with live firearms. How are we to distinguish between "real world or exercise" (the phrase that was famously used during 9/11 by Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Powell when he was asked by Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) Boston Center controller Joseph Cooper to "scramble some F-16s")?

Speaking of 9/11, there were at least five military exercises in operation in the days leading up to and on that day, including Operation Northern Vigilance, Biowarfare Exercise Tripod II, Operation Vigilant Guardian, Operation Northern Guardian and Operation Vigilant Warrior. Those charged with protecting the United States were busy with the exercises that confused participants in the initial hours of the real attacks.

So, planning to have a two-month military exercise which pretends to implement martial law in the American Southwest where a lot of military bases are located in communities which are heavily and legally armed has the immediate attention of everyone concerned. What could the military and its commander-in-chief be thinking?!? Idiots.

Not gonna happen. The reason for the 2nd amendment nowadays is for Americans to protect ourselves from each other, not from Uncle Sam. If these redneck libertarians actually got rid of "big gubbermint" they'd find that this country would become very much like Afghanistan or better yet Somalia: A perpetual state of war with an infrastructure in shambles, rampant poverty, severe food shortages, and people living in constant fear for their lives.

Time to put on yer tinfoil hat!

Most people's idea of an "attack" is having someone hurt their little feelings. They wouldn't recognise a REAL threat if it darken their own doorway.


And how! Having a mock attack like that is a recipe for disaster.

A long time ago at a garage sale I came across what appeared to be an airsoft (or whatever) MP-5a3. It was cheap so it probably didnt work anymore. At a glance it looked like a real MP-5 down to the details like the selector lever, mag release, charging handle, and even the little lever to release the retractable shoulder stock. I was going to buy it just to use it to f**k with people, like when I see someone I know pull into a parking lot. Pull a ski mask over my head and "ambush" them with that real enough looking toy gun. It only took a few seconds to realize how stupid that was. Any armed citizen or an off-duty or plain-clothes cop would be within thier rights to gun my ass down with a real gun and ammo and they would never see the inside of a jail or a courtroom.
Hey, they saw a terrorist with a submachine gun and acted.

No, it's an actual real operation. ... sigh. It's an unclassified document made available to the public.

they solved it by changing the barrel. devastating and effective aren't he same. you can devastate an enemy without ever having fired a shot. i care more about rounds on target and over use of rounds, our military has a thing about over doing and then over doing the over doing and so on and so on. not really about what is most efficient or effective more about what looks cooler, cost more, is scary.

anyways it seems clear we'll never agree, so I'm going be the one to end it as it will just be two apsies replying back and forth about the same thing never agreeing.

All I'm saying is that the M134 minigun is both devastating AND effective! You should read up on the actual combat record of this weapon. The MG-42 turned out to be not very effective at all. The true measure of the efficacy of a weapon is not the technical details of its operating mechanism, but how it actually performs on the battlefield. Do your homework.

Hmm, are you going to regale us again with how superior the AK47 series of rifles is to the M16 series based on some Vietnam era memoirs, Anton?

The MG-42 was not very effective at all??
On what planet was this?

Well the MG42 did suffer from a major problem which was the fact that the barrel would overheat; requiring soldiers to change the barrel to prevent the gun from jamming. But that proved disadvantageous because when soldiers were changing the barrel, the enemy had the opportunity to fire a fatal shot. The MG-3 is far more effective because it has a shorter barrel with a chromium plated lining that can withstand the enormous heat generated by the guns high rate of fire. EVER SECOND COUNTS when you're a firefight on the battlefield! That's why a jammed/overheated weapon can cost soldiers lives because the enemy isn't going to wait for you to fix your weapon/reload. He's gonna try to take you out.

But sly279 is still flat wrong about the minigun. It turned out to be an ass kicker and even a lifesaver during the Vietnam war. Huey choppers used the minigun for suppressive fire when conducting rescue missions. Rotary cannons like the much larger GAU-8 avenger are some of the most effective weapons against armored vehicles like tanks and APCs.

With a good MG crew, barrel changes can be done in a few seconds as long as they have a felt mitten or something to handle the hot barrel with. Other squad members would provide suppressing fire to defend the MG crew and relay ammo belts to them. In fixed positions they would sometimes employ two MG-42's in close proximity to cover each other.

Chrome lined barrels extend service life, especially in the "throat" of the barrel but do not solve all problems with heat. The barrel still has to be swapped out to avoid overheating.

The psychological effect of the MG-42's murderous rate of fire was a weapon in itself.

1. Anton is not my name.

2. I said nothing about the AK-47 or the M16. I was talking mainly about the minigun. sly279 brought up the MG42 to try to discredit my claims about the minigun.

Actually, I've changed out an MG42 barrel without a glove, you just have to tilt the gun back and yank the yoke lever hard enough that the barrel comes out under inertia, then slam a new one in and throw the lever back; takes a couple seconds. Just out of curiosity, has anyone else here ever shot a '42?

You're addressing the wrong person about the MG42. It was sly who claimed it was not very effective, not I. But the barrel overheating issue meant that it could not be used as a mounted weapon on motorized vehicles(including aircraft). I saw a documentary about the MG42 and how American G.I.'s too advantage of the barrel change requirement to take out MG42 squadron crewmen while they were changing the barrels so that's why I'm arguing that it wasn't *quite* the super weapon some folks think it is. The minigun, although it is not a small arm, is superior to the MG42 not so much by an even higher rate of fire, but by the fact that its barrel design prevents overheating(which would be a major, major problem for any vehicle mounted gun).

Am I the only person who knows about the Fokker-Leimberger/ Nussknacker("nutcracker") rotary cannon developed during the final years of WWI? It was a self-powered gatling gun that was claimed by the designer to fire up to 7200RPM, but that hasn't been confirmed. This is an old photo of one of the prototypes: