FG 42 paratrooper rifle

[riggerrob 558]

Moderators, I apologise if I am posting this on the wrong forum. It is about a gun, but an old gun that disappeared from service 79 years ago (1945). The Fallschirmsjager 42 rifle fits in the historical forum because it was an important step in the develop of modern rifles carried by modern paratroopers.

I have always been a keen student of history, specifically the history of paratroopers who fought during World War 2 and laid the ground work for the modern sport of skydiving.

The FG 42 fire was invented after German paratroopers suffered heavy casualties while invading the Island of Crete in 1941. They suffered such heavy casualties that they never jumped in significant numbers after that Pyrric victory.
I recently had the pleasure of shooting a German World War 2 paratroopers' rifle. At only one metre (40 inches) Fallschirmjager 42 rifles were shorter than any of their contemporaries (American Garand, British Lee-Enfield, French MAS 44, German Gwehr 43, Russian Tokarev, etc.).

Part of that short length was achieved by overlapping the magazine with the trigger group, so that the magazine protrudes from the left side of the action. The staggered row box magazines hold 10 or 20 rounds of full-bore 7.92 X 57mm Mauser ammunition.
FG 42s were also significantly lighter. Part of the light weight came from a very short gas system, which created other problems that we will discuss later.
The FG 42 that I fired was an FG 42E model from the first production batch of Fallschirmjager 42 rifles. The first batch can be identified by steeply sloped pistol grip and ribbed metal butt stock. That sliding butt stock conceals a buffer that considerably reduces felt recoil.

The other way to identify an early FG 42 is the bipod, which is hinged at its rear.
The first time I fired the FG 42, I learned why German paratroopers wore gloves! The fashion started to protect their hands as they tumbled forward on landing because of their odd parachute harness configuration.
The second reason they wore gloves was to protect their left hands from powder burns coming off the gas port immediately forward of the wooden handgrip. Despite wearing modern Nomex pilots' gloves, I still felt powder burns on my left hand any time I foolishly allowed my the heel of my left hand to creep forward of the rearmost ridge on the wooden forearm. After firing 100 rounds, my left glove was noticeably blacker and had a few new tears halfway through the leather.
Now we know why later FG 42 Gs (as well as FN P90 and the shorter HK submachine guns) have an extra ridge (under the front edge of the forearm) to prevent the shooter's left hand from sliding too far forward.

We also learned why the FG 42 has a second ridge (on the right side) to prevent the paratrooper from gripping it too far aft. If your left hand slides too far aft, your little finger can prevent the cocking handle from completing its forward stroke and prevent the gun from firing.

The fourth reason German paratroopers wore gloves was to protect their right hands from spent brass. The FG 42 E vigorously ejects its spent brass 10 meters to the right! One of those spent cartridges tore a piece of skin off my right hand the size of a pencil eraser! Now we know why later FG 42Gs had a case deflector riveted to the right side of the receiver.
That vigorously ejected brass reminds spectators to stand well back. The second thing spectators learn is to wear ear protection. The Fg 42 E barks loudly from the flash exaggerator on the end of its barrel. Fortunately the flash exaggerator is a much better muzzle brake. The FG 42's muzzle brake works with its recoil buffer (hidden in the butt stock) to halve the felt recoil. FG 42 shooters only feel ha,lf the recoil of people shooting full bore (American .30 calibre, British .303, Mauser 7.92 X 57mm, NATO 7.62 X 51mm, Russian 7.62 X 54mm, etc.) ammunition out of contemporary military rifles (American M1 Garand, British SLR, Canadian FN C1A1, etc.). My right shoulder used to get bruised after firing an FN C1A1 rifle for an hour, but I could fire an FG 42 until I ran out off ammunition. (Note this critique comes from a skydiver who dislocated his right shoulder a few years ago.)

IOW The FG 42 has about the same length, weight and felt recoil as an American .30 carbine, but fires far more powerful, full-bore Mauser 7.92 X 57mm ammunition.

The most enlightening part of firing the FG 42 was realising that I could learn more in an hour of shooting than from reading a dozen books or a hundred internet searches.

Would I buy an early FG 42 E rifle?
No!
But when the zombie apocalypse comes to town, I want to be armed with a late model FG 42 G with as much ammunition as I can carry. The bipod will help steady my aim as I pick off the first zombie at 800 metres (850 yards). The minimal muzzle rise will allow me quickly shift aim to the second zombie. The minimal felt recoil will allow me to comfortably kill zombies until I have fired off all my 8mm Mauser ammunition. The short length will allow me to return fire on zombies chasing me up a stairwell. Finally the spike bayonet will allow me to take down a few more zombies before I go to Valhalla.

References: "Death From Above ... FG 42 ..." by B

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Rob,

See attached,

JerryBaumchen

[riggerrob 558]

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for providing the photograph.

The early model FG 42 E, at the top of your photograph was the subject of my review.

[PiLFy 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISKnl1OnI9Y&feature=related

Still look like it kicks pretty good. Just as well you don't want one. I recall seeing one sell for $85,000 not too long ago.

[Krip 2]

Hi

Thanks for the info on history of the german paratroopers.

I've seen movies of the germans para s during WW2 perform different type of exits on the T.V. one is the sliding of the wing then there's the standard superman exit out the door.

Where they jumping reserves? The documentary showed the paras allegedly jumping into crete with what looked like a single point connection from their suspension lines to the rear of their harness is that true or just serious line twists?

Was that why their landings we so challenging?

Hell of a way to go to work for both sides. Thanks for posting this piece in the H &T forum. Some of us older folks dont go to SC.

One Jump Wonder

[steve1 5]

Thanks for the interesting read.....I have several zombie guns, but not that one.

I think the only long gun I ever jumped was an M-16. We'd let the sling way out and jump it over the shoulder, or use a weapons carrier.

I recall seeing pictures of WWII (American) paratroops with grease guns. I never thought much of that weapon. It was not very accurate and was meant for short range use only.

I loved shooting the M-1 garand, if only it wasn't so heavy. I guess, that (before weapons carriers) some soldiers jumped the M-14 with the muzzle up. I heard of a few cases where the static line might wrap around the muzzle causeing trouble. Some soldiers even jumped with skiis on their side. It seems like that would be really asking for trouble.....

Being a rigger, I'll bet you have seen all kinds of equipment being jumped, and dropped.

[pchapman 261]

Krip

with what looked like a single point connection from their suspension lines to the rear of their harness is that true or just serious line twists?

Was that why their landings we so challenging?

Yup. Single point connection, no chance to at least haul on a riser to sideslip a little. No reserves normally I think. Apparently towards the end of the war they had a different system, but they weren't doing big drops (any drops?) by then.

I think books say they didn't learn the more modern roll but were expected to fall forward - which might be something someone on the other side just guessed by looking at how they hang under the canopy. But I have unpublished reminiscences from a former Fallschirmjaeger and he suggests they practiced rolling every which way. If one doesn't have directional control of the canopy, who knows which way you are going to have to roll anyway.

Photos suggest the Germans went without a reserve. The British system was also with no reserve. The British canopies at least had a better and more reliable staging method than the US had, deploying the lines first before the canopy inflated from a bag. (As opposed to 'canopy first' where it was inflating before the lines were paid out). I believe the German system was similar to the Brits in that way.

That's all mostly from memory of different books so others might have better detail.

One local former skydiver in my area, first jumped in '42, courtesy of the German Army. He missed Crete and all that, so ended up being used in ground forces in Italy. It is his reminiscences that I have. I could go through that some more and find some details on German paratrooper training....

From "Fallschirmjager- German Paratroopers from Glory to Defeat 1939-1945", a training photo:
(Must be early in those troops training cycle as they aren't kitted up at all.)
[inline GermanParatrooperTraining.jpg]

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Peter,

Quote

The British canopies at least had a better and more reliable staging method than the US had, deploying the lines first before the canopy inflated from a bag. (As opposed to 'canopy first' where it was inflating before the lines were paid out).

I do not know about the T-7 but I made my first two jumps on a T-10 system and they are a 'lines first' method. The canopy does stay in the bag until the lines are payed out.

JerryBaumchen

[Krip 2]

Thanks PC fot the pic. The student looks real serious and has great form.

since I posted the last I had so many questions I googled the crete campaign some of the german tactics were well thought out there was at least one minor flaw besides the harness

The germans jumped without their rifles they were dropped in a seperate cannister. When the paras landed all they carried was a knife, pistol, and maybe some grenades. Then they went looking for their long guns.

Steve: we dropped some guys a Bragg around 67 one guy was a little confused and jumped with the barrel up instead of down. For some reason the barrel penatrated his shoulder. I guess he forgot pointy side down.

Hell of a way to go to work

One Jump Wonder

[pchapman 261]

I think that was the big deal about the T-10 -- it had a deployment bag on the static line.

The US had the T-5 in WWII, and at the very end of it, the T-7 which used the same canopy system but a different harness and container I think. The T-10 didn't appear until the early 1950s? Every British parachuting publication of the old days commented on how antiquated the US's deployment system was, canopy first vs. lines first. Which is one reason the Brits stuck with no reserve until, what, the early '50s? Which in turn was antiquated! (While having a staged deployment is great, we certainly know now that it doesn't guarantee no mals.)


I don't have proven authoritative sources handy, but the following from someone's website on old military parachutes matches what I've heard before:

Quote

(Note)Another big difference in the T-7 and the T-10 was, the T-10 was packed in a sleeve, which allowed you to fall below the prop blast before your chute opened. With the T-7 the canopy came out first and the risers last; with the T-10 the risers came out first and the canopy last.

and:

Quote

The T-5 assembly consisted of a 28-foot canopy with as many panels, each panel being made up of four panel sections. [...] A fifteen foot static line, attached from a cover on the back tray to a cable inside the airplane, ripped the pack cover off as the trooper jumped free of the plane, pulling out the contents of the pack tray. The prop blast would blow the parachute open and snap the break cord tied between the static line and the apex of the canopy. [...]

The T-7 parachute replaced the T-5 parachute, which was also designed to be a static line parachute. The T-7 demonstrated an improved reliability in opening.[...] The canopy was retained in the pack by a canvas lid, which was held fastened to the outer cover by a breakable line running around the flaps. The lid was firmly sewn to the static line and the apex of the canopy was tied to it with a breakable line, known as the break cord. The static line was stowed outside the pack and held in place by canvas retainers. On extension the static line pulled the canopy clear off the pack by breaking the retaining lines around the pack.

So the T-5 and T-7 had no bag/sleeve, and just dragged the round canopy out by its apex with a break cord attached to the static line. (Sure, skydivers used plenty of canopy-first, no diaper belly reserves for many years, but still the deployments are messy.)

[steve1 5]

I guess the openning shock on a T-7 was awful compared to the T-10 deployment system. I think the old paratroops had to be made of tough stuff. I think jump school was tougher then too.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Peter,

As I mentioned, I have no experience with the T-7. The 'older' guys on the dz when I started ( all ex-military, paratrooper guys ) always said that the T-7 was a 'hurting' rig to jump.

Quote

the T-10 was packed in a sleeve

Any T-10 that was packed into a sleeve was probably modified for sport jumping. Where I started ( back in the Stone Age ) we had both, T-10's in d-bags & in sleeves. Your first jump would always be on a d-bag'd system.

JerryBaumchen

[riggerrob 558]

PiLFy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISKnl1OnI9Y&feature=related

Still look like it kicks pretty good. Just as well you don't want one. I recall seeing one sell for $85,000 not too long ago.

...............................................................................

FG 42 kicks half as bad as an FN C1A1 (Belgians call it an FN FAL while the Brits call it an SLR) firing 7.62 X 51 mm NATO ammunition.

FG 42 has a recoil buffer hidden in the butt stock. So the breech moves an inch farther than the butt stock. The hefty spiral spring in the buffer removes the "shoulder hurt" from the recoil.

[riggerrob 558]

***Hi

Thanks for the info on history of the german paratroopers.

I've seen movies of the germans para s during WW2 perform different type of exits on the T.V. one is the sliding of the wing ...

.....................................................................................

That classic film footage is of Russian paratroopers jumping from a 4-engined bomber. Early Russian paratroopers freefell with parachutes that were only slightly modified form pilot emergency parachutes. Most of them wore (Irvin pattern) 4-pin back packs and clipped on 2-pin chest reserves.
Notice that Russian paratroopers did not even try to fall stable and pulled their main ripcords before they passed the rudder.
Before the Second World War, the French (e.g. Leo Valentine) developed a similar program, but bragged less.

[riggerrob 558]

Thanks for posting that photo of a German paratrooper hanging in a suspended harness.

Like many early parachute harnesses, the Fallschirmjager harness was based on a wide belt. Shoulder and leg straps were almost an after-thought.
The German harness was based on the earlier Salvatore harness worn by Italian paratroopers.
Hitler was so impressed by Musillini (sp?) that he imported the best aspects of Italian fascism to Germany.
Russian, French and Italian paratroopers all predated German paratroopers.

While that harness reduce the hassle of line twists at low altitudes, it created other problems, most notably how to carry weapons.
Most German paratroopers jumped into battle with only the pistols, grenades and knives in their pockets. All their long guns (Mauser K98, MGs and mortars) were dropped separately in tubes about 2 metres long by less than a metre in diameter. During the invasion of Crete (1941) many German paratroopers died before they could grab their long guns.
Heavy losses during the invasion of Crete forced Luftwaffe generals to invent new ways to jump with weapons. One of those inventions was a 1 metre long rifle called the FG 42. The Fg 42 is only 2/3 the length of the bolt-action Mauser K98. Consider that the WW2-issue Mauser K98 was a carbine (shortened) version of the WW1-issue Mauser 98 rifle.

[riggerrob 558]

Krip

... German paratroopers ... jumping into crete with what looked like a single point connection from their suspension lines to the rear of their harness ...

Was that why their landings we so challenging? ...

..................................................................................

Yes, since they leaned so far forward, they landed on toes, knees, nose, elbows, hands and face. German paratroopers wore special boots, knee pads, gloves, etc. to reduce injuries.
Nobody has used that style of harness since WW2.

[riggerrob 558]

***... Every British parachuting publication of the old days commented on how antiquated the US's deployment system was, canopy first vs. lines first. Which is one reason the Brits stuck with no reserve until, what, the early '50s? Which in turn was antiquated! (While having a staged deployment is great, we certainly know now that it doesn't guarantee no mals.) ...

................................................................................

Parachute technology advances in awkward leap-frogs. For example, the Brits introduced direct-bag static-lines during WW2. The British X-type parachute was so reliable that they felt no need to issue reserves until the 1960s (?).
But by then, the Brits had also invented anti-inversion netting ... another huge advancement in reliability.

So by the time Brits started wearing chest-mounted reserves (1960s) their mains were far more reliable than any-one elses'. Chest-mounted reserves did more to passify lawyers than they did to reduce fatality rates. I am wiling to bet that there have been more "finger problems" (e.g. 2-outs) since the British Army introduced reserves.

[pchapman 261]

@ rob
So you nicely tied the parachute part of the thread back together with the gun part of the thread...

@ all:
A couple links for anyone trying to get books on Allied & Axis WWII parachute designs -- here are the titles of a couple by a Guy Richards:
http://en.bookfi.org/book/1343162
http://en.bookfi.org/book/1516888
Don't accidentally click to download unless you mind breaking copyright law. They are really good books, about the technology, not paratrooper war stories.

[riggerrob 558]

... So the T-5 and T-7 had no bag/sleeve, and just dragged the round canopy out by its apex with a break cord attached to the static line. (Sure, skydivers used plenty of canopy-first, no diaper belly reserves for many years, but still the deployments are messy.)

...................................................................................

At low airspeeds, you can get away with a lot of foolishness that will kill you at faster airspeeds.
Consider that a DC-3 flies jump run at 80 or 90 knots. A C-130 Hercules flies jump run at 130 knots, with jet-engine military transports flying even faster. Every extra knot increases damage to canopies, because the amount of energy increase with the square of the airspeed.

[riggerrob 558]

***I guess the openning shock on a T-7 was awful compared to the T-10 deployment system. ...quote]

..........................................................................

Agreed, any type of canopy-first deployment means that the canopy is partially-inflated before you reach line stretch. You decelerate rapidly when you fall to the end of the lines.

[pchapman 261]

riggerrob

Yes, since they leaned so far forward, they landed on toes, knees, nose, elbows, hands and face.

I'm really wasting time on this thread today. But anyway:

The above is the standard story that I've seen in books. But I kind of wonder if it is entirely true. Certainly, the forward lean would tend to pitch you forward even if not planning to, and they did wear protective equipment. But they would still be drifting with the wind and tend to come down facing at any angle, so they must have had a better plan than feet/knees/face.

Below are a couple sections from my acquaintance's tale, from his training in '43. One covers the landings.

Another section covers carrying rifles on the jump ... So they had clearly changed things after Crete. One of the books I mentioned above notes that some paratroopers did carry rifles even in the Crete landings. Still, it doesn't change the fact that generally little could be carried, and methods to do so properly, took a long time to get into service.


(Sorry, just quickly scanned and not cleaned up.)

Quote

The next few days we went through all the drill has to learn prior to
a paratrooper
his first jump. We began with learning to fall, feet and knees together, falling forward,

sideways or backwards. These were strenuous exercises
and hurtful, even with knee and

elbow protection, and continued for many hours, indoors and out.

Next was practicing boarding and exiting the aircraft. We leapt from a mock-up

of a Junkers Ju-52. The aim was to exit 13 jumpers in eight seconds (in order to maintain

a short dispersal distance) and to teach a diving, spread-eagled body position.

Quote

Other jumps followed, one a day. I me more confident each time. Our

training continued as we experimented with carrying small infantry weapons. The fifth

jump was in formation with all three Ju-52s. The sixth was in the evening. just before

dark. The seventh jump had each of us caming a heavier weapon or part of one, an MG

or a Karabiner 98 rifle, a section of mortar, a canister of ammo. These were attached by

heavy cords around our waists. After opening, we lowered the load which landed first,

slowing our descent. There were no problems with this. The only injuries reported were
to knees, elbows and wrists.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Peter,

Quote

I'm really wasting time on this thread today.

Well, I don't know about you but I feel like I'm back in my class on 'History of Western Civilization' again.



JerryBaumchen

[riggerrob 558]

I wonder how much of the FG 42's BARK is caused by the short barrel??????

The FG 42 E barrel is only 508 cm long, while the Mauser 98 Karbine (WW2) has a barrel 600 cm long and the Mauser Gwehr 98 (WW1) has a 740 cm barrel.

[Krip 2]

Not sure if size (length) matters for the bark.

I know it does for the weight, accuracy, and maybe velocity which could be related to the bark. I wonder if back in the day those jumpers had to wear hearing protection.

R.

One Jump Wonder

[propblast 0]

It is a fun gun to shoot.

Propblast