Talk:MG 3 machine gun/Archive 1

Roller locking
> (note that MG3 uses roller locking, unlike the HK G3, which use roller-delayed blowback)

Different names for the same principle. They work exactly the same, there is no technical difference between the two. 84.159.249.222 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the MG3 definitely a delayed-blowback weapon rather than short-recoil operated? I'd just like to clarify as I'd thought it was the latter, but I'm far from certain.  Chris 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the latter. I fixed the roller locked page by the way. Leibniz 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've changed the article's infobox (again).  I've pointed it at the recoil operation page; should it go there, or to the fixed roller locked page, do you think? Chris 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The recoil page is now pretty good thanks to the diagrams, but does not say anything about rollers. I think the problem is that there are different dimensions (source of power versus locking mechanism), and at the moment Wikipedia does not disentangle them properly: Firearm action reminds one of the List of animals (Borges). Leibniz 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Thanks for that "animals" link, I think my brain's just imploded.  Chris 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The barrel can be exchanged in less than 20 seconds. Maybe even less than 10 if you practise a little bit while the gun stays pointed at the target. 84.159.249.222 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely in less than 10 sec., maybe 5 sec. (open lid, pull hot barrel out, push cool barrel in, reload and fire) espcially when supported by the second gunner 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The MG3 is not one of the weapons the Wolf is officially equipped with(no machine gun is a part of it). If there is an MG3 mouted on a Wolf the mount is always self-made by its crew, the German Ministry of Defense does not support this and did also order the picture of a Wolf with an MG3-mount to be removed from a official brochure. 84.148.222.249 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it did order a picture to be removed, but maybe so as not to give the impression that the Wolf had an MG3 as part of it. I don't think the MoD minds if soldiers mount their MG on the Wolf, if (of course) it can quickly be de-mounted (because the MG must always be either in a soldier's hands, or watched by a soldier, or locked away in the weapons' chamber).--2001:A61:260C:C01:2802:3701:2C7D:717F (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Austria & Australia
The article mentions use by Australia (seems unlikely - the Aussies had used M60s as their GPMG from the 60's); whilst the table later credits Austria as being a user. I wonder if it was just a minor typo? Or did the Aussies have them as secondary armament on the Leopard tanks they got from Germany?

BW 60.234.146.97 09:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering this Eevo 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the German Leopard page and there is a picture of an Australian Leopard with an MG3 mounted on its turret, so I guess the Australians used the MG3 at least on their Leopard tanks. 84.148.214.206 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia used the MG3 as the secondary armament of its Leopard tanks between 1976, and 2007. With the retirement of the Leopard, the MG3 was also retired, being replaced with the M2 .50 cal machine gun, and the M240 7.62mm machine gun as the tank secondary armament. CMarshall (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed Australia as a user, as all the Leopards are now retired, and there is no evidence that the MG3 continues to be used. With the current policies, the MG3s would either be destroyed, or deactivated for museum display (with the tanks). CMarshall (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
Replaced the current template (firearm) with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox createde by the WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 10:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Design history
A couple of points about the article's design history regarding the MG42: first it says that the roller locking mechanism was designed by Johannes Stecke, whereas the MG42 page says Edward Stecke; which is correct? Secondly, it says that the MG42 is a development of the MG34: even if the MG34 was the starting point (which I understand it was), is it reasonable to say that one is a development of the other given the amount of difference between the two designs?

-- Chris  ( blather  •  contribs )  15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the MG42 is a _totally_ different design and _not_ an improved version of the MG34. Of course there are certain similarities in the action because they are, well, machine guns. But the MG42 uses a very simplistic, as not to say idiot-proof action, and is manufactured using very cost-effective stamped-metal techniques. Actually the MG42 was designed by a specialist for industrial rationalization, not a weapons expert. In short, the MG34 showed that there was room for improvement and the MG42 fixed all the things that were problematic in the old model. --84.57.74.240 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seems some of the authors got confused there. The reference to the MG34 is redundant in this article. I reworked the design history and added some detailed technical information. Koalorka 01:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AA-52 Comparable?
I heard the AA-52 is comparable in performance to the MG3, Is this true? User:EX STAB 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the infos on the Wikipedia page are correct, then definitely not. The AA-52 is stated to have a 900 r.p.m. cyclic rate, whereas the MG3 has a cyclic rate of 1200 (and can be "tuned" to 1500) rounds per minute.
 * --84.57.81.223 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

the rate of fire alone is not enough to compare performances of weapons.

Edmond HUET (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MG3 for US Service?
Why wasnt the MG3 used by the US Forces? User:EX STAB 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the reason, maybe they just didn't want to adopt a former enemy's weapon whose business end they had met all too often. However, they tried to copy parts of the MG42 action, the result is the M60. However they didn't do a very good job as you can tell, with the MG3 having almost twice the rate of fire as the M60. I just hope the German Army never gets any strange ideas about removing this formidable weapon from their arsenals. It would be just plain stupid.


 * FWIW I just checked, the US introduced the M60 in 1957, and the MG3 remake of the MG42 dates from 1959, so maybe they just didn't want to replace a weapon they'd only just introduced.
 * --84.57.74.240 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact the M60 is a copy of a FG 42 modified to be belt fed: http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/FG%2042/FG42M60.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/FG%2042/GG42T44M60.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/Quickload/FG%2042/M60.jpg

some prototypes were made in US (Springfield) The greatest failure of the M60 is that the MG 42 feeding mechanism was not simply copied. In 1944, a copy of the MG 42 had been made as well but it did not work because US technicians had been unable to scale properly the mechanism for the 30-06 round. The main reason behind not adopting something derived from a MG 42 was the "Not invented here" syndrom..

Edmond HUET (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Iceland a user
Iceland has no armed forces. I fail to see how they could be among the users of this firearm. I have removed Iceland from the list of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.98.208 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Edited 01:57, 8 July 2008 User Haukur Ísleifsson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haukur Ísleifsson (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Icelandic Coast Guard-Kjallakr (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland is neither a user of the MG 3. In fact the Swiss armed forces uses the MG 51 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG51). It is an enhanced Machinegun developed by the Waffenfabrik Bern and based on the famous MG42. It has its similarities with the MG 3 but is a different weapon. So I removed Switzerland from the list too. 80.219.147.213 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada is not a user
are there any sources for that claim? Canada did indeed get Leopard 2s from Germany, but on all our vehicles we mount the C6 GPMG. I am a combat engineer in the Canadian army, and this is the first time I've heard of us using the MG3. I'm removing this from article until there is verification

--70.81.41.152 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Loaned Leopard 2A5s from Germany (not the purchased ones) retain their MG3 armament. 99.244.1.112 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia's policy at WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You need to cite a reliable source that says Canada uses the MG3. ROG5728 (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Observe then: http://afghanistanblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/leopard2a6m_canada_031.jpg note the exif data is from the CF's own combat camera team, and that it clearly states that this is a CF Vehicle. Note the very obvious MG3. Only thing I was wrong about was that they are 2A6s on loan, not 2A5s. 99.244.1.112 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your source is unsuitable as a personal blog. See WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. If you were to find the same photograph at a suitable source, and with a caption identifying them as CF forces, the information could be used in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You spanner, the source is not the blog, rather the blog originally procured it from the CF combat camera. Seing as you're going to be asinine about this, Here's ANOTHER image from the CF Combat Camera, Definitively showing an MG3 next to Canadian Forces Personnel. And yes, this is an official DND image.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=9381&site=combatcamera

99.244.1.112 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your source was a blog and it doesn't matter where the blog 'procured the photo'. You did not even cite a source at all the first time you added the text to the article. The second image is suitable and I added Canada to the article citing it as a source. ROG5728 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With which I still am at odds with the wiki staff for this. I am former CF personnel and have USED an MG3 in the course of my duties, hence my annoyance at this 'verifiability' nonsense. 99.244.1.112 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Poland is also a user of MG3
Polish military is using MG3 on it's 128 Leopard 2A4 tanks since 2001 (one AA and one caoxial)

we should add Poland to users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.200.147.198 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thailand&MG 3
Please tell me. I would like to know the reason why Thailand is removed from the "User" subject. The MG3 is still used in military and police are present. Especially if you have news of violence in three southern provinces of Thailand. You always see the V150 vehicle armor installation with MG3 machine gun.

Please see a photo in http://www.whq-forum.de/invisionboard/index.php?s=&showtopic=27914&view=findpost&p=1042364. --223.206.5.56 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion forums aren't suitable sources. This entry needs a text source (or at least a reliable photo source such as Getty Images) that says Thailand uses the MG3. Please see WP:RS. ROG5728 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

change in wording
Currently, one sentence in the lead states "The MG3 was developed in the late 1950s [...]". I think the word 'developed' isn't quite appropriate and I believe that 'standardized' (or 'standardised')should be used instead. After all, it is essentially a re-chambered MG42, so the only things that need "developing" is a re-chambered barrel, re-calibrated sights, etc - pretty minor work compared to actually developing a weapon. It's really more of a standardization of a modification to the weapon, rather than development from scratch. I'm going to change this, but If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert, and a discussion can continue if necessary.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Muzzle "device"
"A muzzle device is mounted at the end of the barrel and it acts as a flash suppressor, muzzle brake and recoil booster."

Is it possible for something to act as a muzzle brake and a recoil booster. Those articles would seem to imply that those are opposite in nature: one decreasing recoil, and the other increasing recoil. Or is some other type of muzzle braking/rise compensation effect being claimed? 84.203.34.187 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * from personal experience I can say that in certain situations the mg3 goes "up" when firing, so a muzzle break that compensates this movement would make sense. However the only two properties of the "standard device" mounted to the barrel that I know for sure is that of a flash suppressor (which totally sucks when using tracer rounds as it makes it impossible to see where you are firing), and that of a recoil booster. You can see on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Schnittbild.MG3.jpg how it operates. The label "Rückstossverstärker" means recoil booster. I can't see anything there that could act as a directed muzzle brake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rheinmetall MG 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081030031846/http://www.diomil.ir:80/en/aig.aspx?search_id=mga3 to http://www.diomil.ir/en/aig.aspx?search_id=mga3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080310194442/http://mic.sd:80/images/products/wepons/en/KARARrsh.html to http://mic.sd/images/products/wepons/en/KARARrsh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090414160114/http://www.jandarma.tsk.mil.tr:80/silahlar/silahlaric.htm to http://www.jandarma.tsk.mil.tr/silahlar/silahlaric.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (2)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rheinmetall MG 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100601094804/http://www.exercito.gov.br:80/NE/2010/05/10664/10664.pdf to http://www.exercito.gov.br/NE/2010/05/10664/10664.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110520181849/http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/equipaggiamenti/armi_legg.asp to http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/equipaggiamenti/armi_legg.asp#individuali
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210131831/http://www.mkek.gov.tr/english/foUrunDetaylari.aspx?iKodUrun=90&iKodUrunKategorisi=107 to http://www.mkek.gov.tr/english/foUrunDetaylari.aspx?iKodUrun=90&iKodUrunKategorisi=107

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Austrian MG74
The MG74 is not a version of the MG3. It is an modified version of the German MG42. It was acquired at a time when it was forbidden to buy German weapons.--Proeliator (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (3)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Rheinmetall MG 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=9381&site=combatcamera
 * Added tag to http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/army/p37256-ghanaian-army-sgt-directs-his-men-forward.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513205333/http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/ to http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (4)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rheinmetall MG 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mkek.gov.tr/english/foUrunDetaylari.aspx?iKodUrun=90&iKodUrunKategorisi=122
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66QZGFwrw?url=http://en.calameo.com/read/000127853fed679f5ecec to http://en.calameo.com/read/000127853fed679f5ecec
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029205451/http://www.pof.gov.pk/IW_MG3.aspx to http://www.pof.gov.pk/IW_MG3.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029205451/http://www.pof.gov.pk/IW_MG3.aspx to http://www.pof.gov.pk/IW_MG3.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Name
Should the Rheinmetall MG 3 be changed to MG 3 like the MG 42? I find the manufacturer name unnecessary. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)