Nope. Funny story. I'll get to it.
Gas operated guns allow different cyclic rates
So do recoil operated guns, but it's arranged differently. One of Maxim's early water-cooled guns included a clockwork buffer retarder on the lockwork, and it was infinitely adjustable via a sliding bar from about a shot every second to 10/second- about 600 RPM. Later the Germans set the rates of fire to match as closely as possible the max RPMs of the motors in their WWI aircraft, then fitted a mechanical interrupter gear to allow the gun to fire through the arc of the propeller without hitting it. Later, a second gun was set up the same way, and the fighter pilot had progressed a step between gentleman officer pilots taking potshots at each other with their pistols.
Browning's M1917A1 was lightened into a lighter air-cooled gun as a burden a little lighter for the Cavalry's horses to haul [and got more ammo added to their load, ya can't win!] and by 1940 was modified into a 1200 RPM gun for the rear gunner in torpedo and dive bomber aircraft. A few- five at least- were also fitted with cutoff M1 Garand buttstocks and bippods and used as Infantry guns, with which one Marine earned the medal of Honor. The Austrian and German MG42 followons use differing bolt retarders and weighted carriers to go from around 1500-1750 RPM to 800-900 RPM, tankers and antiaircraft gunners wanting the faster rate, Infantrymen who carry their own belts preferring the guns *set slow;* the Austrian guns have a single-round selector built into the trigger group of their MGs
But we encountered the MG42 in North Africa in '42, and it was considered as a lighter MG for American Infantry on its bipod and as a light .30 Browning replacement on some vehicles. So Ordnance contracted Bridge to run off drawings and a set of test stamping dies and with the help of a couple of captured German guns, the drawings, dies and two prototype guns were made. They didn't work very well.
The US cartridge of the time was the .30-06, .30M2 version by the time WWII came around, aka 7,62x63mm to the EuropeansThe German guns, and their receivers so carefully copied, were understandably designed around their 7,92x57mm Mauser caertridge. The difference between the empty cases is 6mm, about a 1/4 inch, just enough for the longer US empty casews to catch on the edge of the edge of the ejection port- and due to the location of the barrel catch, it couldn't just be opened up, though the use of a shorter barrel carrier had been discussed. But the good idea was dropped, and the guns transferred to the museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Come the 1950s, we'd won the war, and had a new possible enemy to fight. We decided it was time to have a lighter rifle than the M1 Garand, and full-auto as well, and we got a new cartridge to go with it, one that was about 3/8 of an inch shorter than the old .30-06 used in the Garand. it would have worked in the T24 guns. Instead we spent half a billion dollars designing and manufacturing the M60 MG, heavier, less reliable and about three times as expensive as an MG42, and not suitable as a tank or light armoured vehicle mg because the barrel slides forward for replacement when hot. Eventually, they were replaced with FN MAG guns that became the M240, also heavy, but it works.
But we could have had the T24 in 7.62x51 NATO as early as 1955. And saved a good part of that 500 million dollars.
Those German bringback guns that gave up their parts to get the prototype T24s going? They went to the Aberdeen Proving Ground museum too, along with their leftover parts. When Colonel Jarrett, the museum director retired, he took a pretty fair-sized truckload of souvenirs with him as a retirement present. A close friend of his got one, and he passed away a few years back. And I know where it is. But I see nossing, NOSSING!!!
I think that the MG42/1/3 is a good, solid weapon but doesn't fit the methods of employment within our (US Army and Marine Corps) doctrine. It would have been less expensive to produce than the M240 but at the end of the vendor pipeline, who knows? No need to replace the M240, though - it's an excellent machine gun and it's proving to be the best that we've ever had.
The M-60 was a cheap and flawed weapon but we made do with it. I used the M-60 in combat a lot and got quite good with it. I suppose I could have made do with the Benet-Mercier too, but that's because we are just used to pounding square pegs into round holes.
Semper Fi.
awesome post. Love the background and detail you provide.