What's will happen to the Ultimax?
-
as a saw ? burst fire ?
-
Yes burst. Multiple burst = chains heh
Our's accurate enough with tracers you dont need to spray and drag all over like a hose.
And i'm sure our ultimax is lighter than 4.9k. As far as i remember holdiing it it's even lighter than m-16. I may be wrong.... -
what about the Mk.46?
since the plastic ammo carrier is not as cumbersome. maybe this is not a bad option. Well its still a m249. but its weight is slightly heavier than the ultimax.
Maybe STK will completely build a new SAW from scratch. Seems the best thing to do. -
when a rifle is heavy when loaded it's not the problem of the magazine being heavy.... it's the -number of rounds- that makes it really much heavier.
Our Ultimax may not be the best in the world...but it's close enough! In my opinion anyway.
Hope STK will retain everything except change the bolt area to accept SAR21 mags instead ,IF they want to have polymer mag for every weapon. -
The Ultimax is a cool weapon... it is supposedly so precise that it can be modified to serve as an ad-hoc sniper rifle, that some armed forces have modified it to serve in that role.
I say the coolest thing that ST can do will be to design a new SAW from scratch using all the strong points and the lessons learnt from the Ultimax.
They can call it the Ultimax 2
-
That should be the Mk3A. The butt is made of a lighter polymer, and it has a removable barrel.Originally posted by CM06:Yes burst. Multiple burst = chains heh
Our's accurate enough with tracers you dont need to spray and drag all over like a hose.
And i'm sure our ultimax is lighter than 4.9k. As far as i remember holdiing it it's even lighter than m-16. I may be wrong.... -
I still think that the design, weight of the old SAWs (eg MK3) could be kept, and adjustments made s.t. the SECTION can pass ammo around
-
My bad. Wow. I think the US Marines are least influenced by politics compared to the other arms of their armed forces.Originally posted by moca:No, that's why I said it is interesting. This evaluation I am talking about is happening recently.
A RE-EVALUATION if you prefer... -
do not think this can happen anymore. magazine problem.Originally posted by deathscythe99:I still think that the design, weight of the old SAWs (eg MK3) could be kept, and adjustments made s.t. the SECTION can pass ammo around -
Was a Saw Gunner, using the MK3 with that quick barrel xchange...
Advantages
========
1) Lightweight (though the distribution of weight made it rather an awkward weapon, frontal heavy, rear light) Soldiers that arent physcially strong may have problems with this weapon in terms of wt.; though its sure as hell ais lighter when compared to other 5.56 LMG.
2) Virtually JAM FREE. In live firing exercises, or rather in my 2 years in NSF, i didnt even encountered a live firing jam at all!
3) Low RPM... 400-600 rpm. Pretty low when compared to othe european models... I believe a higher rate of fire is disadvantageous. 1)You burn your magazine clip too fast. 2)Higher INaccuracy. 3) Barrel heats up too fast.
Quick short bursts will get the job done. 3-4 secs bursts. A 30round mag will last about just 10--15 secs. Guess thats the 100rnds mags is for, though never used it before..
4) Robust made, pretty darn accurate, one of the better weapons the ST have made...
Disadvantages
===========
1) Fucking ball gunpowder! Making it so hard to clean the weapon! Luckily the SAW is virtually JAM free even when dirty.... Ok la, even the SAR/M16 uses this stupid gunpowder... The ARMY should switch to IMR...
2) Weight distribution balance problems for the weaker Soldier.
I would take this weapon any day over any weapon currently in the SAF....
In short, RELIABLE...
Hmm where's that mk84 stoner -
I had one very bad double-feeding during live firing. The jam took the instructors armed with screwdrivers 15 minutes to clear.
The Ultimax weight was no problem even for reservist infantrymen in my 2 PDF unit.
Actually, I think the Ultimax can be improved in terms of robustness.
The co.cking handle is especially flimsy.
I also think that the barrel on the standard issue can be slightly shorter. Right now it isw a full 21-inch. Something 18-inch might be enough. -
Wait and see..
-
I think having a Squad automatic weapon and limiting it to a 30 rd mags is pure dumb! the ability to give good support base and a support weapons need a sound weapon system with a good feeding base! so far non can replace a good belt fed!! our U100 has the ability to do but the feeding system of the 100 rd is flawed. U cannot load the drum manually unless having special machinery and it is unreliable in the field. We can see all the drum system that did not work as well like the Beta-C mag!
Having 30 rder although is lighter loses its full potential as a SAW... As you can see all the major army adopting good and sound SAW like the Negev, M249 etc etc! all uses a proven belt fed system! Even the spec ops chose to use such system! currently FN came out with teh M248 which is the SAW in 7.62! but in a lighter package than the GPMG or their M240B!
they should find a good replacement like the M249 or some newer belt fed!
DaveC! -
The long barrel is one reason why it's so accurate dude....Originally posted by moca:I had one very bad double-feeding during live firing. The jam took the instructors armed with screwdrivers 15 minutes to clear.
The Ultimax weight was no problem even for reservist infantrymen in my 2 PDF unit.
Actually, I think the Ultimax can be improved in terms of robustness.
The co.cking handle is especially flimsy.
I also think that the barrel on the standard issue can be slightly shorter. Right now it isw a full 21-inch. Something 18-inch might be enough.
The longer the barrel for two weapon of same calibre the more accurate and more powerful.
Our SAW has no problems now.
It just faces a Magazin issue should everything go Sar21.
In redesign, it's the same old belt-fed vs mag issue for any other SAW.
I suspect, production of SAr21 variants will offer more insights to designing an upgraded Ultimax 2. Hehe. -
Belt feed == Complication?Originally posted by davechng:I think having a Squad automatic weapon and limiting it to a 30 rd mags is pure dumb! the ability to give good support base and a support weapons need a sound weapon system with a good feeding base! so far non can replace a good belt fed!! our U100 has the ability to do but the feeding system of the 100 rd is flawed. U cannot load the drum manually unless having special machinery and it is unreliable in the field. We can see all the drum system that did not work as well like the Beta-C mag!
Having 30 rder although is lighter loses its full potential as a SAW... As you can see all the major army adopting good and sound SAW like the Negev, M249 etc etc! all uses a proven belt fed system! Even the spec ops chose to use such system! currently FN came out with teh M248 which is the SAW in 7.62! but in a lighter package than the GPMG or their M240B!
they should find a good replacement like the M249 or some newer belt fed!
DaveC!
You'll have more parts for the belt mechanism
I believe the good thing about the Ultimax is it's simplicity
When you strip it, you'll go: "Huh? Just like that?"
The bad thing about the Ultimax is the catch for the butt... I lost it once and saw a few guy losing it also...
And its too dang long for a short guy like me also... Was cursing and swearing when bashing through vegetation... -
Here are some facts to consider for people like us brought up to love the Ultimax...Originally posted by DarthBart:Belt feed == Complication?
You'll have more parts for the belt mechanism
I believe the good thing about the Ultimax is it's simplicity
When you strip it, you'll go: "Huh? Just like that?"
Belt feed looks complicated. But for our Ultimax, the complicated bits are hidden away inside the drum where you can't see.
The Ultimax drum is problematic: Why else are they not issued for training?
Comparing the loaded and unloaded weight between the belt-fed Spanish CETME Ameli and the Ultimax is revealing of the 2 feed systems.
Ultimax:
Empty: 4.9kg
Loaded: 6.8kg (100 rounds drum)
100 rounds in drum = 1.9kg
CETME Ameli:
Empty: 5.3kg
Loaded: 6.85kg (100 rounds belt in combat box)
100 rounds in belt & box = 1.55kg
Weight of a single M193 5.56mm round = 11.79g
So 100 rounds of M193 will be 1.179kg. This works out to:
Ultimax drum alone weighs 0.72kg.
Belt links and box weigh 0.37kg.
For the Ultimax gunners 3 empty drums will weigh over 2kg. And these empty drums are deadweight he will be carrrying until he can send them back to HQ for reloading.
And for the belt gunner, this 0.37kg weight are all disposable once the belt is fired off.
This means that as far as ammo SUPPLY alone is concerned, belts are actually LIGHTER than Ultimax drums!
If the belt feed mechanism did add some weight to the weapon, once mounted with ammo, both systems evens out, slightly in favour of belts.
Agree, the butt is the other example of shoddy workmanship that needs to be improved. Overall, the Ultimax feels flimsy.Originally posted by DarthBart:The bad thing about the Ultimax is the catch for the butt... I lost it once and saw a few guy losing it also...
The Ultimax is actually only 4cm longer than the M-16S1. But because all the weight and bulk are in front, it seems very much longer.Originally posted by DarthBart:And its too dang long for a short guy like me also... Was cursing and swearing when bashing through vegetation...
Due the Ultimax constant recoil system require a long receiver, the only place you can reduce length is the barrel.
It will sacrifice some accuracy and effectiveness, but this would also shave off some weight to slightly reduce the strain on your weaker left hand and improve the balance.
Remember the balance will not improve once you have a 100 round drum on the weapon. The weight forward of your right hand will INCREASE by another 1.9kg and it's not gonna be pleasant. -
Basically standardise the magazines.Originally posted by deathscythe99:I still think that the design, weight of the old SAWs (eg MK3) could be kept, and adjustments made s.t. the SECTION can pass ammo around -
Dave, the SAW was not meant to be a static fire-support weapon, like the M249. It was meant to be moving all the time with the section, for extra clearing power and mobile suppression fire needs. Perhaps thats why we went for the 30rnd mag option.Originally posted by davechng:I think having a Squad automatic weapon and limiting it to a 30 rd mags is pure dumb! the ability to give good support base and a support weapons need a sound weapon system with a good feeding base! so far non can replace a good belt fed!! our U100 has the ability to do but the feeding system of the 100 rd is flawed. U cannot load the drum manually unless having special machinery and it is unreliable in the field. We can see all the drum system that did not work as well like the Beta-C mag!
Having 30 rder although is lighter loses its full potential as a SAW... As you can see all the major army adopting good and sound SAW like the Negev, M249 etc etc! all uses a proven belt fed system! Even the spec ops chose to use such system! currently FN came out with teh M248 which is the SAW in 7.62! but in a lighter package than the GPMG or their M240B!
they should find a good replacement like the M249 or some newer belt fed!
DaveC!
I would love to see the Ultimax with a provision for the Beta-C though. -
The M249, IMI Negev, Daewoo K3 etc is not intended for static fire-support only. It is intended to be with the mobile section and employed exactly like our Ultimax. See Black Hawk Down or any Iraq newsreel for reference.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Dave, the SAW was not meant to be a static fire-support weapon, like the M249. It was meant to be moving all the time with the section, for extra clearing power and mobile suppression fire needs.
For static fire-support., the US, Israelis and nearly all NATO-style armies still have the platoon GPMG which is 7.62mm like SAF.
I don't think we "went for" the 30-rd mag. The 30-rd mag was originally only meant to be "emergency ration" when the SAW gunner runs out of 100-rd drums.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Perhaps thats why we went for the 30rnd mag option.
The SAW gunner in theory was supposed to carry only drums and the rest of the section dole out 30-rd mags to him when he runs out.
BTW Dave is former SAF. -
Yeap, I know abt Dave.Originally posted by moca:I don't think we "went for" the 30-rd mag. The 30-rd mag was originally only meant to be "emergency ration" when the SAW gunner runs out of 100-rd drums.
The SAW gunner in theory was supposed to carry only drums and the rest of the section dole out 30-rd mags to him when he runs out.
BTW Dave is former SAF.
Thanks for the enlightenment about the theory though. -
belt fed better? incase u get caught in a nasty situation u can add longer belts?(donno true or not but issit a posibility if u stuck in a bad situation u can not use the box and use like how germans use thier mg42s last time? a long belt wif more ammo than a normal 100/200 rds maybe 500? like this defence will be easier as u will not nid to reload so frequently(unsure bout this)
but if u fight against jus infantry it be hell easier than 30rds/mags -
Ideal situation would be to re-look at the Ultimax magazine.
If the drum cannot be improved, start again. The spring needed to puch 100-rds in a drum must be quite a beast and create all kinds of problems.
Maybe develop a 50-rd box or drum that is more reliable than a 100-rd drum. This 50-rd box/drum must be able to be loaded by hand.
Sure, it'll be known as the Ultimax-50, but it''ll still be better than the current Ultimax-30
From the experience of other people, especially the FN Minimi, it seems the magazine feed option for belt guns is unreliable. So our Ultimax does have a huge advantage in being able to take 30-rd box.
As to the question of SAR-21 magazines not being acceptable to the Ultimax, I think maybe we should convert the SAR-21 back to STANAG magazines.
Making the SAR-21 take only proprietary plastic mags is a mistake to begin with. If current STANAG mags are bad, I'm sure a better one can be made, including adding the see-thru option. If STK put their mind to it, I don't see why this can't be done. Diemaco of Canada has already made a more reliable STANAG mag. The British also use their own more robust STANAG mags for their SA80 rifles. -
Makes you wonder - if the small stuff is put on hold...what are they looking at...heh
-
The fact that it takes longer time to reload a belt must be taken in comparison to how long it takes to reload a 100-round drum?
Though faster than a belt, the 100-round drum isn't exactly handy either.
Rambo aside, I don't see how many people under fire can change mags while running. So it makes sense for a SAW gunner mag or belt fed, to duck down behind cover to change ammo while your buddies cover you.
How much time does it take to change a belt? Any GPMG gunners here? Tankees? -
all you need to do is to open the cover of the ammo box containing the 7.62 belt, slot it into the relevant holding area, open the cover of the GPMG, pull the belt out and feed it in and close the cover of the GPMG.
cock it and u can start fire. at least 5 secs if u have the box of ammo beside you, at most a minute if you have to pry open the damn ammo box.