Weapon *Life Expectancy*

You do realize that the M1917 test was a water cooled version and depending on the availabilty of water the barrel would not have heated up in the same manner as that of the G3.
As for 30-06 Ammunition being corrosive you are partially mistaken. the .30-03 Ammunition was very erosive and corosive partially due to the type of propellant and the amount of Glycerine in the primer

Whereas:

And we'll throw this in one last time for good measure:

Why you are still arguing I have no idea. Quite frankly comparing your experience with the air cooled G3 under 'civilian' conditions is not accurate when discussing the charecteristics of the M1917 Browing during a Military test and application. You have absolutley no practical basis to present an opinion. You have been presented with the facts in evidence over and over again ad nauseum and yet you continue to refute imperical evidence.

The M 1917 was never intended to fire the .30-03

 

*sigh* I never said it did, but the information I have mentioned the problems with high flame temperatures of early powders, like those used in WW1, the Springfield was then presented as an example, and I referenced it for you guys to see. Why I am being attacked for this I honestly don't know, but judging from earlier posts it seems people only read half the stuff I write before they jump all over their keyboard.

Also the MG3 I fired whilst serving inside the military, not as a civilian. Not that it makes an ounce of difference...

As I understood it the WW1 test of the M1917 was done where one long 20,000 round burst was fired, and if that was the case then the barrel was scrap after that. That's all I've ever "claimed".

 

The problems that the '03 had was a result of the .30-03 ammunition and was remedied in the .30-06 ammunition which is what saw service in WW1.

 

au contrare mon amis, I would be surprised if the MG-3 did get stoppages. After all you served "inside the military" and whilst serving "inside the military" you would have learned the tricks of the trade, and found that as long as you use don't use plastic blanks, stoppages in the MG-3 are extremely rare, and obviously the gunners own fault.

That sounds very army drill like

The gun got so hot? The gun?

 

Happened quite often for some of us actually, but the guns were also quite old, and come to think of it they could've been MG-74's, it's been a while afterall. Anyway I clearly remember the few times I tried the gun that I often had stoppages because of stuck casings jamming the gun.

??

The gun = the barrel obviously.

 

I am going to need to see proof that you were ever in the military and that they allowed you to fire 1,000rds non-stop from a machine gun just to play. Until you provide that you don't exist.

 

Proof, as in what? Medals? Badges?

Not sure what you want.

Also if you think that every military is so strict about how the weapons are used and are 100% aware of everything that's going on everywhere, you're seriously naive...

Soldiers from the Dutch army scrapping the barrel of a SAW:
[video=youtube;a5V54VGfvTU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5V54VGfvTU[/video]

 

They just heated it up. That was no where near 1,000 rds and it was not one burst.


I still want proof you were in the military.
So, you can post up your discharge, enlistment paper work, Military ID, a note from your CO whatever you want. I have no problems doing it and will gladly do so if asked. Right now I am calling Bull Sh*t.

I have trained with the Armed forces of every nation I have been to and I have never, never seen the purposeful damaging of equipment being tolerated let alone authorized; especially when it has to do with weapons.

 

You want me to provide papers from nearly 30 years ago? That'll be hard, esp. seeing I'll have to scour the attic for it.

 

I've got mine from 25 years ago sitting right here. I would not expect anything from you that I could not readily provide.

 

Well my ID will be very hard to find, if at all it's in my house and not back at 'home'. All I've got readily available from my time in the military are some pictures, badges, pieces of equipment etc.. ID papers and such is not something I can just pull out of my pocket or drawer, it's been over 30 years since I was a young adult in the military.

Anyway what has this got to do with the MG3's barrel not being able to survive 1,000 rounds of non-stop fire? Is there really any doubt to this fact?

And as for the barrel of the SAW, it was a done deal, you can hear the soldiers themselves say that it's a goner.

 

So then you are unable to substantiate your basis of experience?

It has everything to do with verifying/ substantiating/ adding credibility to your story where in you ruined a barrel of either an MG3 or MG 74 while serving in the military.

What I heard them say is "It's too hot" and one of them was asking about a glove or blanket to remove the barrel. There was another saying that they should open the cover and remove the ammo. But my Dutch is a little rusty and I didn't hear anyone say the barrel was "A goner"

 

Formerjughead, posting ID papers will not verify wether the barrel of a MG3 will be ruined in under 1,000 rounds of non-stop fire or not. Neither will it even verify wether I was in the army or not, it could be anyone, and as such it is pointless. All this is about is you trying to start a pissing contest.

Instead it would be better if you could in any way disprove the fact that most MG barrels wont last for 1,000 rounds of non-stop fire without having suffered considerable wear, and in the case of some weapons exceeding the useful life of the barrel.

For one, have you, in the military or in civilian life, ever seen a barrel survive such a number of rounds fired non-stop without significant damage being suffered by the rifling? Hence why I said it mattered little wether this experience comes from within the military or not, the weapons aren't made from different materials, they are the same.

 

Magic weapons. A MG-3, that becomes a MG-74, only to reappear as a MG-3. The Barrel is Ruined after 1,000 rds.

But you expect Jugs to prove that: most MG barrels wont last for 1,000 rounds of non-stop fire without having suffered considerable wear.

Wear starts from the first shot fired and is a far cry from:

not being able to survive 1,000 rounds of non-stop fire
I've ruined an MG3 barrel in just under 1,000 rounds fired
]

This is rubbish. You can not, can not, compare a civvy weapon to that of an army one.

It is like comparing the care and maintenance my old Opel is getting compared to CV-90 in the army.

I have inspected many Sauer barrels (the prime weapon in the shooting association) that people have claimed to be shot out. After going through it with the microscope and decided what need be done, they are usually fine, or cast aside due to poor maintenence.

An untrained person playing around with a machinegun is not, not going to give it the care that is required.

 

What difference does it make wether it was a MG74 or a MG3 Jeager? Not much I'd assume. Like I said I can't remember if it was one or the other, they are very similar weapons after-all. One of my army buddies who was with me that day says it was a Serbian captured weapon, and that's why we were allowed to have fun with it. I can't remember all the details, it's been many years, and it wasn't a weapon I was trained extensively on.

 

Serbian captured MG-74 ???

I have had it with the constant avoidance of questions on your behalf. Good day sir.

 

No it's not about a pissing contest, it's about you changing your story. Your argument has gone from M1903 Springfields being ruined after 1,000 rds to machinegun barrels being ruined after 1,000rds, to finally machinegun barrels being ruined after a continuous burst of 1,000rds.
Of course an aircooled machinegun barrel is going to be damaged after 1,000rds of continuous fire. That is why aircooled machineguns are not operated in that manner, 3-5 rd or 5-7 rd bursts is what they are intended to maintain.

Now you have gone from "ruined" to "considerable wear"....pick one.

I have never in my professional life witnessed a machinegun barrel being subjected to such abuse. As a Range NCO my foot would be squarely in the ass of anyone who fired in such a manner. Fring a machinegun in such a manner in civillian life would only serve one purpose: separate me from my money and frankly, trying to ruin a machinegun barrel just isn't that entertaining to me.

Good Day indeed sir

 

There are a number of proplems with it.
1) I have no way of determing if it is indeed a fact or just your claim.
2) If it is indeed a fact there are questions as to how relevant it is:
a) How many rounds had already gone through the barrel?
b) How well had the gun been maintained?
c) Was it in good shape when you started?
d) How comparable is it to a water cooled maching gun?

I don't.

If you look at the test description it's at least a serious possiblity.

I'm still waiting for any serious proof to the contrary. You are the proponent here and you have done very little to support your position.

Have we? It appearse from what others have posted that this document post dates the use of highly erosive ammo.

Your previous posts have demonstrated a distinct tendency not to support your positions with verifyable references. They have also lead at least some of us to question your interpretation of facts and events. The recent posts in this thread have indicated that you are either having a hard time keeping your "facts" straight or are making them up as you go along. If you continue along this line I suspect at the very least more and more posters will tend to discount your "contributions".

 

Let's get some things straight here.

Here's what I NEVER claimed:
A) That the Springfield M1903 in general only has a useful barrel life of 1,000 rounds
B) That machine guns in general only have a useful barrel life of 1,000 rounds

Here's what I did say:
A) That using some WW1 era ammunition the M1903 only had a useful barrel life of ~1,000 rounds, due to the very high flame temperatures generated by the powders used back then.
B) That most machine guns, namely the MG42, -3 & -74 will wear out their barrels after 1,000 rounds under certain conditions as discussed in this thread; in this case uninterrupted continuous fire.

As for the barrel I ruined myself, the MG was originally a Serbian capture according to an old friend who was also there, ofcourse he could be wrong, I'm not the one making the claim in regards to its origins, but the design was unmistakable; it was a machine gun of the MG42 design, and as I recall it was chambered in std. 7.62mm NATO, so I figure it must have either been an MG3 or an MG74. Finally I was never fully instructed in the use of that particular weapon as it wasn't part of our std. inventory. That's all there is to say about that, it happened, I was there. All the minor details I have long forgotten, it's been many years. But it was definitely a 1,000 round pu together belt, and the barrel was done before we had chewed through the entire belt.

Oh and I almost forgot, that we were "allowed" to do this is not some exceptional thing, the military in reality isn't as strict about the usage of weapons at all times as some in here have suggested - unless ofcourse you wanna look at their "official" rules & regulations, but they are broken from time to time, I assure you. Not everything is done according to the book at all times.

 

It damn sure was in my military and any military I trained with.