F-15 Eagle
New Member
They both look very similar. Is there any major differences?
I was wondering if anyone can help. Thanks.
I was wondering if anyone can help. Thanks.
Is there any differences between the M249 SAW and the MG4 machine guns?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The M-249 is an American version of the Belgian FN Minimi and there are a number of different specific versions of that (the American version) as well as the FN Minimi.
The MG4 is a similar type LMG made by H&K in Germany.
The most significant difference between the two is that the M249 can be belt- or magazine-fed, while the MG4 is belt-fed only. This major difference is only true on some of the M249s since some variants eliminate the ability to use standard 5.56 mm NATO rifle magazines.
Otherwise I believe there are some minor differences in the action and the weapon furniture.
Hope this helps.
-Cheers
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Yeah I knew they had different companies, but it looks to me that H&K copied the Minimi.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In actual service, no, not really. It was initially one of the design 'advantages', since the SAW could also potentially use rifle mags supplied by other squad/fireteam members. In some of the later variants of the M-249 the magazine feed option has been eliminated.
I do find that fact somewhat ironic, since one of the mods on the M-249 which differentiated it from the FN Minimi was that it was a US requirement that the M-249 ROF had to be the same whether it was belt- or magazine-fed.
As for the MG4 being a copy of the Minimi... I personally doubt that, otherwise I would have expected to see mention of that on an HK site about the MG4. Also when I looked at images of the M-249, there appears to be an ejection port on the right side of the weapon, while the MG4 ejects spent brass down instead. If someone familiar with the M-249 could confirm that spent brass is ejected to the right, that would confirm that there are some definite differences in the actions of the two LMGs.
-Cheers
@F-15 Eagle
What do you expect?
Technology to design such a LMG is pretty mature since decades, especially when it comes to companies like FN and H&K.
That they look a little bit similar is not surprising at all.
BTW, I don't think that they look so similar that one has to think of a copy.
What is going to be interesting is the 7.62mm version of the MG4 which is going to replace the MG3 in some years.
I wouldn't wonder if this one gets a smaller ROF than the MG3 and so will be similar to the FN MAG, especially as it is based on the MG4.
I bet if Kato is around he could give you the exact date of expected introduction.
What do you expect?
Technology to design such a LMG is pretty mature since decades, especially when it comes to companies like FN and H&K.
That they look a little bit similar is not surprising at all.
BTW, I don't think that they look so similar that one has to think of a copy.
What is going to be interesting is the 7.62mm version of the MG4 which is going to replace the MG3 in some years.
I wouldn't wonder if this one gets a smaller ROF than the MG3 and so will be similar to the FN MAG, especially as it is based on the MG4.
I bet if Kato is around he could give you the exact date of expected introduction.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
OK but other than some small differences, the Minimi/M249 and the MG4 are very very similar, in fact they can all be grouped together in the same family IMO. They just look so similar, except that the M249 has a heat shield on top while the MG4/Minimi does not.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The differences you describe are pretty much just 'furniture' on the weapon. IMO the important differences have to do with the action, since that is what is actually involved in loading, chambering and discharging the weapon.
In terms of functional use, I suspect the situation is similar to comparing an M16 to a G36, different weapons that use the same round to serve the same role.
-Cheers
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9
IMO I don't think thats a fair comparison, since the M16 and G36 look nothing alike while the M249/Minimi and the MG4 look very very similar. You can't compare the M16 vs G36 to the M249 vs MG4. The MG4 and M249 look very much the same but the M16 and G36 look very different. So I don't think the two rifles and two machine guns should be compared that way.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You missed the point of the comparison.
The M16 and the G36 are completely different rifles, but they are both chambered for the same round, and have the same roles in different militaries. Given that both are semi/fully automatic rifles, this means that the two rifles would be operating with one of three type actions, a delayed-blowback, gas impingement, or gas piston. I could be mistaken, but I believe both designs actually use gas impingement to drive a rotating bolt. Therefore the internal arrangement of the different rifles would have some similarities.
This means that how the rifles function when used is quite similar, even if they do have somewhat different external appearances.
As Waylander put it, there really is a practical limit to just how much variation is possible with current firearms without changing the rounds fired.
A good example of this is the fact that the M2 0.50 cal. HMG is still in production with only some minor changes, since 1933. Another example is the German MG42/MG3, these two MGs are essentially the same weapon, just chambered different rounds.
-Cheers
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
I see what your saying.
kiwifighter300
New Member
M16 is gas impingement and the G36 is gas piston HK combined the best of both to produce the HK416
But I think the point stands the M4/M16 looks a lot like the HK416 but internally they work differently. Whereas, the HK416 and the G36 look completely different the action is of the same type.
I think for FN to have a competitor of the caliber of HK produce a blank sheet design so similar to it's own indicates how right FN got it in the first place.
Cheers
But I think the point stands the M4/M16 looks a lot like the HK416 but internally they work differently. Whereas, the HK416 and the G36 look completely different the action is of the same type.
I think for FN to have a competitor of the caliber of HK produce a blank sheet design so similar to it's own indicates how right FN got it in the first place.
Cheers
Pardon my intrusion and ignorant questions.
I'm not well versed with small arms.
1. I've been told than using the magazine fed option on the MINIMI causes some damage to the gun. Is this true?
2. Has the rate of fire on the MG-3 been reduced, compared to the MG-42?
3. In the NZ army, the MINIMI is issued at section level. Before the MINIMI, was the GPMG ever used by sections?
4. Is it true that HK a few years ago ceased producing the MP-5 and that the only licensed
MP-5s available for export are from Pakistan? [the Iranians produced an unlicensed MP-5]
5. Off -topic, sorry. Waylander, in the German army, how are spare rounds for the Panzerfaust and Bunkerfaust carried? In plastic/fibre glass containers or just sacks like how spare RPG-7s are carried?
Thank you.
I'm not well versed with small arms.
1. I've been told than using the magazine fed option on the MINIMI causes some damage to the gun. Is this true?
2. Has the rate of fire on the MG-3 been reduced, compared to the MG-42?
3. In the NZ army, the MINIMI is issued at section level. Before the MINIMI, was the GPMG ever used by sections?
4. Is it true that HK a few years ago ceased producing the MP-5 and that the only licensed
MP-5s available for export are from Pakistan? [the Iranians produced an unlicensed MP-5]
5. Off -topic, sorry. Waylander, in the German army, how are spare rounds for the Panzerfaust and Bunkerfaust carried? In plastic/fibre glass containers or just sacks like how spare RPG-7s are carried?
Thank you.
No, not significantly. It's more like a bit more reliably stabilized at 1200 +- 50 rpm. MG-42 was officially 1200 rpm, but under certain conditions could relatively uncontrollably go to up to 1400 rpm.
Regular rounds for the Panzerfaust come in a fibre tube for storage and en-bloc transport. For tactical transport in ready form by soldiers and vehicles, rounds are then removed from that tube and [carried openly, with a sling]. Unlike the RPG-7 rounds, Panzerfaust 3 / Bunkerfaust rounds are self-contained in their fibre launch canisters at all times, and don't come in any other form. The launch canister can be reloaded at the factory.
Having multiple in a sack like with the RPG-7 would be a bit unwieldy - a single ready round without the trigger/sight unit weighs around 10 kg after all. The trigger/sight unit is carried in a small bag. Usually, spare rounds are carried by free soldiers of the squad or platoon in addition to the two the PzF troop of two would carry.
---
Edit: Germany used to have a very RPG7-like system back in the 60s to 80s, the "PzF 44mm Lance". Was retired with introduction of the PzF3, and before that issued rather widely - the Territorial Army in the end fielded somewhere around 10,000 of them just with their 90,000 men in "last-line" infantry units (for combat in the cities).
Last edited:
Kato,
The MG-3s in the German army are a section based weapon and are issued at 2 per section. Is this correct?
[I've noticed from photos that the MG-3 tripod is identical to the one used in WW2]
How are the Panzerfaust's distributed? To infantry sections and to anti tank/support companies? Is the Armbrust still used?
Thank you for the feedback..
The MG-3s in the German army are a section based weapon and are issued at 2 per section. Is this correct?
[I've noticed from photos that the MG-3 tripod is identical to the one used in WW2]
How are the Panzerfaust's distributed? To infantry sections and to anti tank/support companies? Is the Armbrust still used?
Thank you for the feedback..
Last edited:
MG3 was issued one per squad (of 6-10 men depending on type). Now being replaced with 2 MG4 in its place.
Typically one launcher per squad for every squad near the front line. Both infantry and rear echelon. Occasionally more, depends on mission outline and type/split-up of unit.
There are no specialized light anti-tank units in the Bundeswehr, the AT platoon in the fire support company of infantry battalions uses TOW 2 launchers on Wiesels, the AT companies of brigades (no longer in existence) used automated HOT missile launchers (or manual-operated TOW2) on the specialized Jaguar ATGM vehicles.
Was never used by the Bundeswehr, export item only. The Bundeswehr uses Milan 2 as its light ATGM.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #17
At the squad level yes but the MG3 is still used as the standard GPMG in the support gunner role, same way the U.S. uses the M240. Their both a Platoon/Company weapon.
Err, depends on unit. The MG3 are usually available to the squadleader as an alternative if he thinks he needs them, yes.
But that's mostly because there are plenty of them available. Once the MG3 (vehicle gun) successor is introduced, this practice will probably change.
But that's mostly because there are plenty of them available. Once the MG3 (vehicle gun) successor is introduced, this practice will probably change.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
Do they not distribute MG3 like the U.S. does with the M240? Different layout then?
I thought the MG3 is still the standard GPMG for vehicles and ground troops, with the MG4 as the squad support weapon like the M249 SAW.
No.
We don't have something like a weapons platoon where the GPMGs are located.
The MG3 was/is a squad level weapon and not attached from a higher level to the squads.
The Bundeswehr just started to replace the one MG3 with two MG4s in the squad.
But when a MG3 is needed one may very well also bring it along instead of the MG4s so that one has some squads with one MG3 and some with two MG4s.
We don't have something like a weapons platoon where the GPMGs are located.
The MG3 was/is a squad level weapon and not attached from a higher level to the squads.
The Bundeswehr just started to replace the one MG3 with two MG4s in the squad.
But when a MG3 is needed one may very well also bring it along instead of the MG4s so that one has some squads with one MG3 and some with two MG4s.