Jump to content
Boingo

The Definative MG34 Resource

Recommended Posts

At the moment, there is no definative MG34 resource. There are plenty of reference photos, but not the kind of in depth source for measurements and building techniques one really needs for building a high quality detailed prop from scratch.

Here's a suggestion.

How about we all get together and see if we can make a definative MG34 resource ourselves?

I am not just talking about more reference photos, or a few quick drawings. My idea is for the group to create a combination of resources that will allow even the crudest newbie to create a detailed prop that would make the engineers at Mausser Worke who designed the MG34 sit up and applaud. These would include detailed full scale (printable) blueprints with measurements accurate to within a fraction of a millimetre, along with articles explaining various methods for building parts and assembling them in such a way that is not only accurate, but also capable of surviving the rigors of being hauled around to various meetings and conventions. This is the kind of resource everybody needs.

The finished group of drawings, measurements, and articles would make a great addition to the MEPD web site, as well as a good addition to the web sites of all of the contributers, who, of course, can then proceed to brag about how wonderful their contributions are.

I've got a real MG34 bipod I can create detailed measured drawings from. Is anyone else game?

If you are, you know what to do. Pull out you calipers, warm up your drawing programs, and get ready to roll!

(If you are a moderator, and like this idea, please make this a sticky (pinned) topic.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really like the idea of a complete tutorial section here!

(so i made this topic sticky!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a great idea, I have a Hyperfirm MG34, I know others have the real thing. If I could help in any way just ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found a couple of web pages and a pdf file detailing the standards used in technical drawing. I believe these will be helpful in developing drawings of various parts needed for this effort.

http://www.answers.com/topic/engineering-drawing

http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.007/Resources/drawings/

http://www.tech.plymouth.ac.uk/dmme/dsg ... _Notes.pdf

Also, here is some information on how to use calipers for those who do not already know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calipers#Vernier_calipers

Cheap plastic calipers can be found in dollar stores (99ยข stores), and are more than accurate enough for our needs. They are certainly much better than using a ruler.

I would also like to suggest that we use a system I call "Nice & Greedy".

Nice means that we should all share our measurements and other important information.

Greedy means that each individual should try his best to be the one who creates the best drawing or article, for the sake of bragging rights.

If this system works, eventually we will come down to having the best of the best as far measurements, drawings, and building methods to post on the site are concerned. Everybody wins.

I already have my bipod disassembled, and I am working on measured drawing of its parts as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I made my blaster (and the tutorial), it was all based on the real thing. I got extensive pictures and measurements from Cliff Wright, who is just a prop god, and owns the real deal.

I've made a couple of these, now, and they really are pretty easy to do. And in the end, they weigh in at a whopping 3 lbs. I also made a revolutionary advance, and made them in two parts - they disassemble to fit in armor tubs.

Maybe these are a good place to start.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pictures are on my friend's server. He keeps having problems with it. I will prod him to get it back online as soon as can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound silly, but how compatible is Corel Draw's .CDR format?

If I start putting up technical drawings in .CDR format, will anyone be able to use them?

<

I do not know how useful this is, but here is my first meager contribution to this project.

http://www.doomlegends.com/deimwolf/gun ... onents.zip

I took a preexisting exploded view diagram of the MG34, cleaned it up, and removed all of the internal parts, then rearranged all of the components into a more logical diagram. I then imported the bitmap into my ancient copy of Corel Draw (version 5!), and added identification tags to the major parts.

Hopefully, this diagram is compatible with newer versions of Corel Draw, and other drawing programs.

If needed, I can upload a bitmap version of the diagram for printing from a paint program. >>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the other thread, but this could be pretty helpful here, too.

If anyone has other makes/makers/types/kinds please let me know, as I can add them to this picture. I am also looking for a better picture of the Cushman kit, and a picture of a resin one.

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, any more luck with this project? Everybody has guns here in Arizona. I'll check around at some of the class 3 dealers and see what I can come up with as far as getting access to a real one.....or at least to some schematics.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehehehe

Yeah. I've already got all to the photos from gunpics.net in my collection.

In fact, I am using one of them now to figure out the length of a notch in the underside of the butt I am making to fit the latch that holds the butt to the recoil buffer as we speak.

This one as a matter of fact.

I emailed Cushman for some close-up shots of his MG-34. Here is what he sent me:

http://www.cushmanpaintball.com/BuildingMg34.jpg

http://www.cushmanpaintball.com/showmoremg34rep.html

Here are two pics of my Cushman that I made by dropping it on my flatbed scanner. Since the flatbed is only 14 inches long, I was only able to scan a couple of representative sections. I did not have a digitial camera at the time.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Unfortunately, I have since cut my Cushman apart to aid in the making of my MG34 model (See here for the explanation.), so I am not able to to take any full length digicam pictures now.

The pics do show just how lousy the Cushman is, and why buying one is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you bought a Cushman, then at the same time complained that these MG-34s should not be bought by MEPD members (AND you starting/recommending this flaming sticky), while you cut the Cushman into parts so you could get exacting measurements and dimensions... is hypocritical.

All of the chopping in order to recreate missing parts you needed to complete/merge with the actual de-milled MG-34 parts you are using (for those who do not know... MG-34 parts are very expensive, by the way) to complete your personal DLT-19.

So, this is allowing you to make the end-all, be-all of MG-34-type DLT-19 blasters? To replicate? Or are yo going to hire a machine shop, and buy up all the scrap MG parts you can find rotting in some Former East German Ammo dump and sell $800 semi-demilled MG-34s?

I find it odd that the MEPD forum would agree with your suggestion to make a sticky, for all to see at the top of this section - and single out a prop provider - Cushman - and allow a flame string started by you... to be perpetuated.

On the clonetroopers.net forum, we lock flamers.

Here on MEPD, I was called down on remarks made on Sci-Fire, and I retracted my factual statements, mainly for mentioning I could not get a Hyper-Firm E-11 delivered to me.

So, here is a pic of a demilled MG-34 (top) versus a well assembled Cushman MG-34 (bottom). For the price of $50 for the Cushman...with the spare cash (and time) one could be left with enough cash to buy a suit of FX armor to boot.

Posted Image

Also, here is a folder of high-res images and a wood tutorial on how to make $50 Cushman look troop worthy...

http://www.clone-empire.com/MG34/

Some people do not have money to burn hunting down 75-year-old antique Wermacht weapon parts for their costumes.

If you find my remarks out of line Boingo, please send them to this detachment's DL. I am interested in what leadership says.

John

Hehehehe

Yeah. I've already got all to the photos from gunpics.net in my collection.

In fact, I am using one of them now to figure out the length of a notch in the underside of the butt I am making to fit the latch that holds the butt to the recoil buffer as we speak.

This one as a matter of fact.

I emailed Cushman for some close-up shots of his MG-34. Here is what he sent me:

http://www.cushmanpaintball.com/BuildingMg34.jpg

http://www.cushmanpaintball.com/showmoremg34rep.html

Here are two pics of my Cushman that I made by dropping it on my flatbed scanner. Since the flatbed is only 14 inches long, I was only able to scan a couple of representative sections. I did not have a digitial camera at the time.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Unfortunately, I have since cut my Cushman apart to aid in the making of my MG34 model (See here for the explanation.), so I am not able to to take any full length digicam pictures now.

The pics do show just how lousy the Cushman is, and why buying one is a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've only just started reading these threads because my next project is going to be a proper BFG for my TD (right now i'm using a thrown together PVC mg-15 that i've never been happy with).

my guess as to why the cushman is usually looked at so negatively is that most folk on specialty forums like this one are striving for uberaccuracy.

for example: my 2 trooping E11s are a hyperfirm and a demiled sterling, and i've replaced the hengstler 3 times trying to get just the right look.

in my opinion, it's not that it's a bad product, it's just not a highly accurate replica prop.

there's a place for both, but my take on it, when i go to the "definitive mg-34 guide", i'm looking for how many millimeters across the vent holes are.

the same thing happens on most boards i read... the bulk of the people on there are the real obsessives who can't sleep at night because the ribs on their blasters aren't on right (this is me... got back up at 2am because i knew something was wrong. yeah, i'm a loser, i know )

i think it's important to keep both sides of the split informed, but i tend to think that budget projects and ultimate accuracy projects are 2 totally different beasts with little to no overlap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you bought a Cushman, then at the same time complained that these MG-34s should not be bought by MEPD members (AND you starting/recommending this flaming sticky), while you cut the Cushman into parts so you could get exacting measurements and dimensions... is hypocritical.

Your assumption that I complained about the Cushman, then went and bought one is incorrect. I only started complaining AFTER I got the Cushman. The quality of the thing was so bad that I had to complain, in order to warn others not to make the mistake I did in buying it. Had I known it was the piece of unusable garbage it turned out to be, I would not have bought it in the first place.

In regard to my taking measurements from the Cushman being "hypocritical, I am afraid you are incorrect on that point. Despite the extremely poor quality of the Cushman, some useful impressions remain.

For example, the safety lever may have its details badly obscured, but an impression of the circular part of it is still visible. If one measures this impression (13mm), one can then infer the measurements of all the other parts of the safety (completely obscured and invisible on the Cushman) by using reference photos, and construct an accurate model version of the safety that is far superior to the quality of the blobby and difficult to see version on the Cushman itself.

Let's put it this way: The details of the original MG34 used by Cushman are obscured by the vacuuforming process in much the same way as the details of a chair would be obscured if you covered it loosely with a heavy blanket. If you know what the chair is supposed to look like, and you take measurements from the details of the chair that show through the blanket, chances are that you can construct a reasonably accurate model of the chair, in spite of the blanket.

Is the Cushman crap?

Yes.

Is using it as a source of measurements hypocritical?

No.

All of the chopping in order to recreate missing parts you needed to complete/merge with the actual de-milled MG-34 parts you are using (for those who do not know... MG-34 parts are very expensive, by the way) to complete your personal DLT-19.

The only part I have chopped off is the butt, which I used to make a rough wooden butt via a duplicator. I then proceeded to finish off *by hand* (See the site for details). What is not mentioned on the site is the time I spent correcting errors of the Cushman in the wooden piece. In wood, I was able to correct these problems with some creative sanding and carving, while it would have been impossible to fix these problems on the vacuuformed piece. (Thank God for belt sanders, rotary tools, and sharp chisels.)

No other parts of the Cushman are useful in any way, except for measurements (See above).

So, this is allowing you to make the end-all, be-all of MG-34-type DLT-19 blasters? To replicate? Or are yo going to hire a machine shop, and buy up all the scrap MG parts you can find rotting in some Former East German Ammo dump and sell $800 semi-demilled MG-34s?

No. I am simply attempting to construct an accurate MG34 model for my own use. If I was going to make an MG34 to replicate, I would probably shell out the money for a real one, and make molds from that. I wouldn't spend over a year working on a model.

I am a detail minded person. Even though I am not a professional, I try to be as professional as possible in everything I build. It is as true in this in virtually everything I make. I am not in this for money.

I find it odd that the MEPD forum would agree with your suggestion to make a sticky, for all to see at the top of this section - and single out a prop provider - Cushman - and allow a flame string started by you... to be perpetuated.

On the clonetroopers.net forum, we lock flamers.

This is not a flame thread, and there has been no flaming here.

I do not flame.

Cushman is not being singled out for any reason other than the fact it is especially bad quality. Time and time again, I have heard people say that they bought the Cushman MG34 and were bitterly disappointed. Saying Cushman is poor quality and not worth buying is not flaming. It is just a statement of my honest opinion.

IF I WAS TO TYPE LIKE THIS, SWEAR A LOT, AND SAY NASTY THINGS THAT WEREN'T TRUE, that would be flaming.

Truthfully, I am unhappy there has been any talk of this at all, since it takes away from the original purpose of this thread--the creation of a high quality reference for builders.

So, here is a pic of a demilled MG-34 (top) versus a well assembled Cushman MG-34 (bottom). For the price of $50 for the Cushman...with the spare cash (and time) one could be left with enough cash to buy a suit of FX armor to boot.

Posted Image

Also, here is a folder of high-res images and a wood tutorial on how to make $50 Cushman look troop worthy...

http://www.clone-empire.com/MG34/

I am not creating a model meant to be seen from 100m away. I am attempting to built a photo realistic capable of looking good at close range.

The whole purpose of this thread is to create a resource for scratch builders to build decent or (preferably) high quality MG34 models, not to talk about the Cushman. Talk about Cushman simply intruded upon this thread.

Some people do not have money to burn hunting down 75-year-old antique Wermacht weapon parts for their costumes.

I do not have money to burn. I am currently living on a disability pension, and paying off two student loans at the same time. After making my loan payments and paying for this internet connection, I am left with $180.00 per month to live on.

Try living on that for a few months, and tell me if I have money to burn.

The reason for buying the occasional real part is simple. Real parts are 100% accurate. Buy a real part, and you don't have to model it. Also, if you have a real part, you can use it to easily infer measurements of other parts associated with it from photos.

For example, I bought a receiver cover. Thanks to it I now know the exact width of the receiver itself, and can more easily figure out the sizes of other parts of the receiver because of their sizes relative to the cover. The cover, being real, also tells me what kind of finish I need to put of the receiver, because the two parts match. It tells me whether I should put hard edges on this area of the model or softer curves.

When one is trying to make a good model, the information gleaned from authentic parts is extremely valuable.

If you find my remarks out of line Boingo, please send them to this detachment's DL. I am interested in what leadership says.

John

I do find your remarks out of line. For starters, they are baseless. You have implied that I am defaming Cushman. I am not. Expressing my honest opinion is not defamation. You have called me a hypocrite. I am not. You say I am flaming. I am definitely not. Calling something that is poor quality "poor quality" is not flaming.

--Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think that some of us (including myself) need to find something more worthwhile than this banter. We are debating the opinions of why you think you are right and why you say my remarks are "baseless" and guys are worried about the mm width between ejector ports to the safety switch and the distortion caused by the inability of styrene to accurately capture the essence and detail of the MG-34 machine gun...

So, a toy prop is causing a debate of this magnitude... the fact that this topic was made into a sticky at the top of this section of this forum is frankly sad... further validating the striving for purity and excellence in the equipment we carry, is almost to the point some might need some perspective outside this tiny world... it reflects on our obsession, to the point it is saddening.

I mean seriously, this is about a styrene or hyperfirm or real/demilled metal machine gun copy for us to carry as costume wearers? This is costuming... it is for fun. We should not be eating Ramen noodles to buy receiver ammo cover plates to improve the accuracy just a bit more this month... man, that is worrisome.

Well, that is sort of like being upset that the Hyperfirm MG-34 does not feel like steel in the hand. If you are a perfectionist... it should be steel... and heavy, not light.

Lastly, when we trooper costumers gather, say at a convention... Boingo, would you look me up and down and in your own mind think..."I am better than John because he carries a styrene blaster (because he is cheap and does not care about quality) and to boot, he wears FX armor?" My bet is yes, you would think you were superior... would the 50 kids gathering around us to take pictures with us, having fun being with Star Wars troopers notice?

Not one bit.

Anyone perspective that?

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think that some of us (including myself) need to find something more worthwhile than this banter. We are debating the opinions of why you think you are right and why you say my remarks are "baseless" and guys are worried about the mm width between ejector ports to the safety switch and the distortion caused by the inability of styrene to accurately capture the essence and detail of the MG-34 machine gun...

So, a toy prop is causing a debate of this magnitude... the fact that this topic was made into a sticky at the top of this section of this forum is frankly sad...

Arrrr. No truer words been spoke laddie buck.

This thread is actually not for discussing the Cushman at all. It is a thread for the collections of measurements and details of the MG34, and various methods for scratch building simple versions for beginners, and more advanced versions for the rivet counters like me.

Please, let's end any debate about Cushman in this thread here and now. We can either continue it off board, or start a different thread specifically for it.

Lastly, when we trooper costumers gather, say at a convention... Boingo, would you look me up and down and in your own mind think..."I am better than John because he carries a styrene blaster (because he is cheap and does not care about quality) and to boot, he wears FX armor?" My bet is yes, you would think you were superior... would the 50 kids gathering around us to take pictures with us, having fun being with Star Wars troopers notice?

As many people on this forum already know, I am not a trooper, so it is unlikely we will ever get a good chance to meet in person. My interest in the MG34 is as WWII prop, and I am here discussing the MG34 on a Sandtroopers forum simply because we share the common goal of attempting to build the most awesome and spectacular MG34 models possible.

I do dress up on weekends, but as a 13th century blacksmith, not a trooper.

If it pleases you, I would like to meet with you on MS Messenger or ICQ, where we can get to know each other better, and perhaps finish discussing this subject without further damaging this thread.

With that, I would like to get this thread back on its original subject by mentioning Bounty Hunter's jaw droppingly fantastic scratch built MG34 / DLT shown in this thread from a few months ago:

http://www.mepd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2584

If we are lucky, perhaps Bounty Hunter will be kind enough to share some of his measurements and building techniques.

Hint>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full agreement.

This is about fun. Cushmans are cheap, and can be made to look nice. Your blaster probably looks awesome! PM me some pics.

Sometimes I think that some of us (including myself) need to find something more worthwhile than this banter. We are debating the opinions of why you think you are right and why you say my remarks are "baseless" and guys are worried about the mm width between ejector ports to the safety switch and the distortion caused by the inability of styrene to accurately capture the essence and detail of the MG-34 machine gun...

So, a toy prop is causing a debate of this magnitude... the fact that this topic was made into a sticky at the top of this section of this forum is frankly sad...

Arrrr. No truer words been spoke laddie buck.

This thread is actually not for discussing the Cushman at all. It is a thread for the collections of measurements and details of the MG34, and various methods for scratch building simple versions for beginners, and more advanced versions for the rivet counters like me.

Please, let's end any debate about Cushman in this thread here and now. We can either continue it off board, or start a different thread specifically for it.

Lastly, when we trooper costumers gather, say at a convention... Boingo, would you look me up and down and in your own mind think..."I am better than John because he carries a styrene blaster (because he is cheap and does not care about quality) and to boot, he wears FX armor?" My bet is yes, you would think you were superior... would the 50 kids gathering around us to take pictures with us, having fun being with Star Wars troopers notice?

As many people on this forum already know, I am not a trooper, so it is unlikely we will ever get a good chance to meet in person. My interest in the MG34 is as WWII prop, and I am here discussing the MG34 on a Sandtroopers forum simply because we share the common goal of attempting to build the most awesome and spectacular MG34 models possible.

I do dress up on weekends, but as a 13th century blacksmith, not a trooper.

If it pleases you, I would like to meet with you on MS Messenger or ICQ, where we can get to know each other better, and perhaps finish discussing this subject without further damaging this thread.

With that, I would like to get this thread back on its original subject by mentioning Bounty Hunter's jaw droppingly fantastic scratch built MG34 / DLT shown in this thread from a few months ago:

http://www.mepd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2584

If we are lucky, perhaps Bounty Hunter will be kind enough to share some of his measurements and building techniques.

Hint>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×