>it is just minmaxing at that point >no shit, dumbass
is what i'd say if this was about the weapon systems
but this thread is a thread about WHY the tilting-bolt system has lasted, essentially, in the FN MAG
(thanks for recognizing that)
again, seriously, why is this system still alive in this gun?
is it the shape?
yet what makes it so good
the SKS & MAS didn't survive, why?
is it the seal that the receiver the provides along the feed system?
that way if the feed if fricked the bolt assembly is fricked?
so its seen as non-problem in this format?
yet still, the fricking bren is still used, and so is the madsen, both tilting bolt systems
so, why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
>is it the shape? >yet what makes it so good
You need to stop focusing on single aspects of the gun and take in the entire package, plus the context surrounding it. Tilting bolts aren't better than rotating bolts because the FN MAG continues to be popular, it's that the FN MAG is a really good GPMG. Other weapons may be better, but are they better enough to justify replacing them, especially when the hypothetical user has been using MAGs for the past 70 years, so they have parts full of warehouses, dozens of factories making parts on tooling that already exists, building a design that's had its' kinks worked out decades ago? >the SKS & MAS didn't survive, why?
Because the SKS and MAS were both "normal" self loading rifles. When it came time to replace them with select-fire assault rifles, the USSR and France started from a clean slate. The inherent problem with tilting bolt firearms is that you need to make the whole receiver* out of steel due to the way it locks up. There are a million other little things when you compare tilting and rotating bolts but I have shit to do but that's the reason why tilting bolts aren't so common nowadays.Additionally, they were developed by different countries with different technical bases, different experiences/doctrine etc. When the MAG was being designed, FN had already been building BARs for decades, they were reliable and sold well, so it makes sense that Saive would start with what he knew (also note how the PKM is basically just beeg upside-down AK). The MAG also has a significant amount of primary extraction due to the link design - always a plus, much more relevant in a GPMG than in a rifle.
*Or have a frickhuge trunnion like the STG44, compare the trunnion on an STG44 to that of an AK or the barrel extension on an AR16.
all i really needs ina few modifications, and its perfect
i'd say a dual separated feedcover design is needed, if you look at the PKM design, it could easily be made into 2 covers, one that holds the entire feed assembly, and one that can be used to reload the feed assembly separately
it would be way easier & allow the use of easily mountable optics, like how they do on M2 browning
[...]
[...]
[...]
Okay but why
a multitude of reasons
the PKM could also use a few addition off a FN MAG too, like the cupped gas piston head
honestly, as they are now, i'd say they're basically even, but with enough modifications (simple ones mind you), the PKM could really do a great job overtaking it
its not like an AK to AR situation, its just different
2 months ago
Anonymous
>a multitude of reasons
wow good answer anon you sure answered his question
2 months ago
Anonymous
yeah, i'm just gonna explain by fricking millimeter the exact dimensions of shit that doesn't even have a fricking name, let alone in english, the exact form of a 3D object in a text space, on a sengelalian pipe tobacco forum
go frick yourself
It just works. Also the MAG/240 uses a linkage to lock, it's only arguably a tilting bolt system.
This but unironically. A colleague of mine used both in combat, said that the only real issue with the PK was the awkwardness of the non-disintegrating belts. Barrel changes look like a hassle though.
yeah, i'm just gonna explain by fricking millimeter the exact dimensions of shit that doesn't even have a fricking name, let alone in english, the exact form of a 3D object in a text space, on a sengelalian pipe tobacco forum
go frick yourself
>let alone in english
You are literally a pajeet who hasn't used either weapon.
>it is just minmaxing at that point >no shit, dumbass
is what i'd say if this was about the weapon systems
but this thread is a thread about WHY the tilting-bolt system has lasted, essentially, in the FN MAG
(thanks for recognizing that)
again, seriously, why is this system still alive in this gun?
is it the shape?
yet what makes it so good
the SKS & MAS didn't survive, why?
is it the seal that the receiver the provides along the feed system?
that way if the feed if fricked the bolt assembly is fricked?
so its seen as non-problem in this format?
yet still, the fricking bren is still used, and so is the madsen, both tilting bolt systems
so, why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
I'll give you a full answer based on my admittedly limited knowledge when I get back.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I saw a demo of the PKM barrel change and it looked finnicky and mildly hazardous.
On the plus, it looked like it retained the belt with the feed cover up, to a degree. M240 is all slip and slide.
The big thing it has is weight and durability. Most guns in it's class that are similarly light tend to suffer in durability. Also the rimmed cartridge really does a lot to improve extraction, ask any pole that had to use a UKM-2000, redesigning it for 7.62 NATO was a serious downgrade
Basically.
PKM is better than any other machinegun out there.
all i really needs ina few modifications, and its perfect
i'd say a dual separated feedcover design is needed, if you look at the PKM design, it could easily be made into 2 covers, one that holds the entire feed assembly, and one that can be used to reload the feed assembly separately
it would be way easier & allow the use of easily mountable optics, like how they do on M2 browning
[...]
a multitude of reasons
the PKM could also use a few addition off a FN MAG too, like the cupped gas piston head
honestly, as they are now, i'd say they're basically even, but with enough modifications (simple ones mind you), the PKM could really do a great job overtaking it
its not like an AK to AR situation, its just different
[...]
[...]
[...]
Okay but why
none of these morons have ever fired or used either weapon system so their opinion is dogshit. both the pk and fn are very good machine guns, both have things that are arguably superior or inferior than eachother but it is just minmaxing at that point.
>it is just minmaxing at that point >no shit, dumbass
is what i'd say if this was about the weapon systems
but this thread is a thread about WHY the tilting-bolt system has lasted, essentially, in the FN MAG
(thanks for recognizing that)
again, seriously, why is this system still alive in this gun?
is it the shape?
yet what makes it so good
the SKS & MAS didn't survive, why?
is it the seal that the receiver the provides along the feed system?
that way if the feed if fricked the bolt assembly is fricked?
so its seen as non-problem in this format?
yet still, the fricking bren is still used, and so is the madsen, both tilting bolt systems
so, why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
My comment is mainly to address people making absolutist statements like "the FN MAG is shit, the PKM is shit" because non nuanced opinions when talking about specifics are annoying.
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but the tilting bolt system is very difficult to wear pressure bearing parts, it is the oldest machine gun operating system and at least mathematically the simplest one. I'm also not a Soviet Machine gunner so again not an expert, but I have had trigger time on a Bulgarian PKM during a foreign weapons course which is more experience than probably anyone on this board unless if we have some people from the eastern block on here. The maxim belt is just objectively antiquated, disintegrating links are superior, also the tangent leaf sight is worse than a rear aperture. I've never used or even seen in person a modern PK with their rail systems (then again who has) but the 240 top rails I've used have been reliable and effective. the barrel change on the MAG or 240 is also in my opinion superior but still bested by modern guns.
The tilting bolt is a shit garbage ass feature because it necessitates a big heavy long bolt and a similarly big heavy long receiver. Also the belt feed mechanism on the PKM is great and much better than the MG42 derived track and roller style.
>why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
They're built like tanks so they've never worn out and needed replacement. More modern machine guns that should be better than the MAG aren't better by enough to justify throwing out perfectly good machine guns. It's similar story to the M2.
The fn weighs 4kg extra for no reason other than inferior engineering.
The PKM with 200-300 rounds weighs the same as the FN MAG. The mag is a shit garbage inefficiently heavy design.
it weighs 4kg more because it has a heavier barrel and thicker receiver, making it more robust, it can also sustain higher round counts due to its simpler bolt mechanism (as in performs less actions), thicker receiver, and barrels. The PKM is higher than the M240, but the maxim belt means that to properly carry it you must have the heavier feeding box, or else carry loose belts (which you should not do). Which is a semantic point but still the carrying weight of the gun is not that big of a difference.
Also the PKM receiver also has to be very long to accommodate the rimmed cartridge and the feeding mechanism, the MAG is only 2 inches longer than the PKM (even shorter on the 240 which has a shorter flash hider). The only real viable complaint is the weight difference which is either a detriment or a benefit depending on who you ask. It seems to me that this doesn't relegate the M240 into a "garbage gun" because you have some sort of beef against the extremely durable lever mechanism.
also if you're b***hing and moaning about this and haven't actually held, shot, or carried either you're gay and moronic.
>it weighs 4kg more because it has a heavier barrel and thicker receiver
Wrong. The fn has an inefficient locking system and general design which requires more steel to achieve the same effect. >the maxim belt means that to properly carry it you must have the heavier feeding box
Wrong. Not only can the PKM also use disintegrating belts if desired nothing about the belt necessitates feeding boxes any more than a disintegrating belt. >else carry loose belts (which you should not do)
(you should) >weight difference which is either a detriment or a benefit >additional weight a benefit
you are delusional
But I guess I wouldn't expect any less from a fcuking murheen
>Wrong
the M240 barrel is 640mm and weighs 6.6 pounds, the PKM weighs 5.3 pounds and is 5mm longer meaning is a thinner barrel profile and not capable of as high of a volume of sustained fire on a si gle barrel. this would necessitate the carrying of another barrel for the PKM to achieve the same effective rate of sustainable fire (again increasing the actual carry weight) >disintegrating belts
didn't know this was a thing tbh but upon some cursory reading it seems this is a recent Ukranian invention and I have never seen an image or video of one being used. functionally 99% of users are probably still using maxim belts which do necessitate ammunition boxes because >(you should
you absolutely should not run around with loose belts hanging off your gun if you can help it, because dirty belts break and jam guns.
You would know this if you've ever run a belt fed machine gun >you are delusional
if you had run a belt fed machine gun you would know that off the tripod weight is absolutely your friend when trying to lay a tight beaten zone.
I readily acknowledged that MAG is heavier, but like anything else in design it is a compromise, the thicker receiver, heavier barrel, and elbow bolt means you have a longer mean service life and rate of sustained fire. I almost forgot to mention that the ability to disassemble the chrome lined gas block and regulator on the MAG is a nice benefit.
>fcuking murheen
lol you mean the people that actually use these weapons? Military service doesn't guarantee you are an expert on anything, especially small arms related. But we can read the same literature you can and we actually use these weapons and learn about them because it's our job.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Barrel changes are a meme. If you're shooting so much that you're in the need of a barrel change it would be a better idea to carry more ammo than an extra barrel anyhow. >didn't know this was a thing tbh but upon some cursory reading it seems this is a recent Ukranian invention and I have never seen an image or video of one being used
Because it doesn't make any fricking difference, don't you understand? >you absolutely should not run around with loose belts hanging off your gun if you can help it, because dirty belts break and jam guns.
This applies to all belt feds and is therefore irrelevant when making comparisons between them >thicker receiver
Doesn't affect service life >heavier barrel
There's a one pound difference and barrel weight is not very useful for making comparisons since people could just make a thicker barrel for the PKM if they wanted to without changing anything else. >elbow bolt
This is you just guessing. There's a reason (almost) literally every new design that comes out uses a rotating bolt, it is the superior locking design, it is stronger, it is lighter. There is no reason to believe that an antiquated linkage lockup mechanism had a longer lifespan than a rotating bolt design with chunky AK locking lugs.
Because replacing the machine gun will never impact the outcome of a war. For small arms what matters is the numbers you can stockpile and produce them and the things you use with them like a radio, night vision, thermals, optics, ballistic computer. Then any rifle or machinegun can become great.
Because it works fine and everybody already uses it
Why change to something "better" and buy all new guns and redo all your training when you already have "good enough" and can just replace guns or parts piecemeal?
No I'm not from the fricking east I'm a mechanical engineer and inefficiency in mechanical structural design infuriates me to no end. Especially if it's a product still being manufactured and used worldwide because it produces people like fricking you who think that it is a good design and that there couldn't possibly be anything else as good ever.
>like fricking YOU
Hmm, assuming your self-description is true, I guess you could also just be a hormonal 19 year old, or thereabouts.
>who think... there couldn't possibly be anything else as good ever
Posts like
>why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
They're built like tanks so they've never worn out and needed replacement. More modern machine guns that should be better than the MAG aren't better by enough to justify throwing out perfectly good machine guns. It's similar story to the M2.
and another that calls the MAG "good enough" dispel your strawmanning.
You know, I actually have pics saved of the XM guns from ~2005-12 that were potential M2 replacements. And I tried asking people about KORD a month ago, because I'm aware of the M2's clunkiness.
I wouldn't want any discussion from you, though. You're some kinda yappy ankle biter.
[...]
No I'm not from the fricking east I'm a mechanical engineer and inefficiency in mechanical structural design infuriates me to no end. Especially if it's a product still being manufactured and used worldwide because it produces people like fricking you who think that it is a good design and that there couldn't possibly be anything else as good ever.
And yes I hate the M2 for all the same reasons.
>I'm a mechanical engineer
lol dude you hate how inefficient the locking mechanism is when in real life it works extremely well, has minimal parts wear, and fewer moving actions? You're calling it a shit gun but are ignoring literally everything else about the gun, and are trying to tell people who use this gun how bad it is. Quit being outraged so easily, they're both fine guns, both have advantages and disadvantages, in the field it is a great weapon.
>works extremely well
The world is full of antiquated things that work extremely well >has minimal parts wear
Just like any well designed rotating bolt lock >fewer moving actions
Are you shitting me right now?
>Does that factor in the barrel etc though?
yes see my other reply above, the 240/MAG has a heavier barrel than the PKM and is capable of a higher sustained rate of fire.
Barrel changes are a meme. If you're shooting so much that you're in the need of a barrel change it would be a better idea to carry more ammo than an extra barrel anyhow. >didn't know this was a thing tbh but upon some cursory reading it seems this is a recent Ukranian invention and I have never seen an image or video of one being used
Because it doesn't make any fricking difference, don't you understand? >you absolutely should not run around with loose belts hanging off your gun if you can help it, because dirty belts break and jam guns.
This applies to all belt feds and is therefore irrelevant when making comparisons between them >thicker receiver
Doesn't affect service life >heavier barrel
There's a one pound difference and barrel weight is not very useful for making comparisons since people could just make a thicker barrel for the PKM if they wanted to without changing anything else. >elbow bolt
This is you just guessing. There's a reason (almost) literally every new design that comes out uses a rotating bolt, it is the superior locking design, it is stronger, it is lighter. There is no reason to believe that an antiquated linkage lockup mechanism had a longer lifespan than a rotating bolt design with chunky AK locking lugs.
>Barrel changes are a meme. If you're shooting so much that you're in the need of a barrel change it would be a better idea to carry more ammo than an extra barrel anyhow.
And then your barrel explodes/your ammo starts cooking off/your gun seizes. You know, the reasons that these guns have quick change barrels in the first place. Surely though, you said that barrel changes are a meme with such authority. Please, tell me more about how you came to that conclusion. Surely, you must have been in multiple extended firefights, seeing as you know so much more than literally every firearms designer, ordinance board, and infantryman in the post-war period.
>Because it doesn't make any fricking difference, don't you understand?
Not qualified to say personally, but there are a million other reasons as to why it isn't standard. It also sounds very convienient, and I know for a fact that having a frickhuge non-disintegrating belt hanging off the side of your gun makes moving with it much harder. >This applies to all belt feds and is therefore irrelevant when making comparisons between them
Fair enough. >Doesn't affect service life
Not informed enough to say so decisively, but the M60 does have issues with receiver stretch and battlefield vegas does report that their stamped AK receivers tend to fail after a while. It's definitely something that can be designed around, but it's certainly a factor on some level. >There's a one pound difference and barrel weight is not very useful for making comparisons since people could just make a thicker barrel for the PKM if they wanted to without changing anything else.
True.
>This is you just guessing. There's a reason (almost) literally every new design that comes out uses a rotating bolt, it is the superior locking design, it is stronger, it is lighter. There is no reason to believe that an antiquated linkage lockup mechanism had a longer lifespan than a rotating bolt design with chunky AK locking lugs.
And? The MAG still works, so people still buy them. You're not wrong, which is why FN's newer products use rotating bolts and why designers have moved away from tilting bolts, but the MAG still fricking works.
https://i.imgur.com/Ggxj4Vl.jpg
[...] >Does that factor in the barrel etc though?
yes see my other reply above, the 240/MAG has a heavier barrel than the PKM and is capable of a higher sustained rate of fire.
Gotcha. How's the PK handle? I've heard that they're pretty easy to swing around due to the lighter weight and center of mass closer to the firing hand.
[...]
Give me $3 000 000 and three years and I'll give you a better GPMG than the FN MAG.
Make a SLDASM file of your design, calculate the weight, then make a powerpoint explaining what your design does better than current designs, send it to me, and I will send you all of my $OGSM.
>then make a powerpoint explaining what your design does better than current designs
Why anon, the advantages of the gomutra cooled barrel are self evident. And let's face it, it can't turn out worse than insas, right?
Right?
>why out of all the tilting bolt weapons, has the FN MAG lasted?
Me
I keep buying them
1/3
Based
Based
Don't forget the M1919/M2-esque construction.
>is it the shape?
>yet what makes it so good
You need to stop focusing on single aspects of the gun and take in the entire package, plus the context surrounding it. Tilting bolts aren't better than rotating bolts because the FN MAG continues to be popular, it's that the FN MAG is a really good GPMG. Other weapons may be better, but are they better enough to justify replacing them, especially when the hypothetical user has been using MAGs for the past 70 years, so they have parts full of warehouses, dozens of factories making parts on tooling that already exists, building a design that's had its' kinks worked out decades ago?
>the SKS & MAS didn't survive, why?
Because the SKS and MAS were both "normal" self loading rifles. When it came time to replace them with select-fire assault rifles, the USSR and France started from a clean slate. The inherent problem with tilting bolt firearms is that you need to make the whole receiver* out of steel due to the way it locks up. There are a million other little things when you compare tilting and rotating bolts but I have shit to do but that's the reason why tilting bolts aren't so common nowadays.Additionally, they were developed by different countries with different technical bases, different experiences/doctrine etc. When the MAG was being designed, FN had already been building BARs for decades, they were reliable and sold well, so it makes sense that Saive would start with what he knew (also note how the PKM is basically just beeg upside-down AK). The MAG also has a significant amount of primary extraction due to the link design - always a plus, much more relevant in a GPMG than in a rifle.
*Or have a frickhuge trunnion like the STG44, compare the trunnion on an STG44 to that of an AK or the barrel extension on an AR16.
This guy knows.
sks
-was replaced by the AK
Too bad the FN MAG is fricking garbage.
yeah, the NK Type 73 lmg is way fricking better
unironically yes
just figure out a way to add a picrail onto it & you got the "new next generation advanced squad machine rifle" of half the entire world
Basically.
PKM is better than any other machinegun out there.
all i really needs ina few modifications, and its perfect
i'd say a dual separated feedcover design is needed, if you look at the PKM design, it could easily be made into 2 covers, one that holds the entire feed assembly, and one that can be used to reload the feed assembly separately
it would be way easier & allow the use of easily mountable optics, like how they do on M2 browning
a multitude of reasons
the PKM could also use a few addition off a FN MAG too, like the cupped gas piston head
honestly, as they are now, i'd say they're basically even, but with enough modifications (simple ones mind you), the PKM could really do a great job overtaking it
its not like an AK to AR situation, its just different
>a multitude of reasons
wow good answer anon you sure answered his question
yeah, i'm just gonna explain by fricking millimeter the exact dimensions of shit that doesn't even have a fricking name, let alone in english, the exact form of a 3D object in a text space, on a sengelalian pipe tobacco forum
go frick yourself
It just works. Also the MAG/240 uses a linkage to lock, it's only arguably a tilting bolt system.
This but unironically. A colleague of mine used both in combat, said that the only real issue with the PK was the awkwardness of the non-disintegrating belts. Barrel changes look like a hassle though.
>let alone in english
You are literally a pajeet who hasn't used either weapon.
I'll give you a full answer based on my admittedly limited knowledge when I get back.
I saw a demo of the PKM barrel change and it looked finnicky and mildly hazardous.
On the plus, it looked like it retained the belt with the feed cover up, to a degree. M240 is all slip and slide.
jew
Okay but why
Juche
The big thing it has is weight and durability. Most guns in it's class that are similarly light tend to suffer in durability. Also the rimmed cartridge really does a lot to improve extraction, ask any pole that had to use a UKM-2000, redesigning it for 7.62 NATO was a serious downgrade
none of these morons have ever fired or used either weapon system so their opinion is dogshit. both the pk and fn are very good machine guns, both have things that are arguably superior or inferior than eachother but it is just minmaxing at that point.
>it is just minmaxing at that point
>no shit, dumbass
is what i'd say if this was about the weapon systems
but this thread is a thread about WHY the tilting-bolt system has lasted, essentially, in the FN MAG
(thanks for recognizing that)
again, seriously, why is this system still alive in this gun?
is it the shape?
yet what makes it so good
the SKS & MAS didn't survive, why?
is it the seal that the receiver the provides along the feed system?
that way if the feed if fricked the bolt assembly is fricked?
so its seen as non-problem in this format?
yet still, the fricking bren is still used, and so is the madsen, both tilting bolt systems
so, why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
My comment is mainly to address people making absolutist statements like "the FN MAG is shit, the PKM is shit" because non nuanced opinions when talking about specifics are annoying.
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but the tilting bolt system is very difficult to wear pressure bearing parts, it is the oldest machine gun operating system and at least mathematically the simplest one. I'm also not a Soviet Machine gunner so again not an expert, but I have had trigger time on a Bulgarian PKM during a foreign weapons course which is more experience than probably anyone on this board unless if we have some people from the eastern block on here. The maxim belt is just objectively antiquated, disintegrating links are superior, also the tangent leaf sight is worse than a rear aperture. I've never used or even seen in person a modern PK with their rail systems (then again who has) but the 240 top rails I've used have been reliable and effective. the barrel change on the MAG or 240 is also in my opinion superior but still bested by modern guns.
The tilting bolt is a shit garbage ass feature because it necessitates a big heavy long bolt and a similarly big heavy long receiver. Also the belt feed mechanism on the PKM is great and much better than the MG42 derived track and roller style.
>why is the FN MAG still here? what makes it so great, specifically?
They're built like tanks so they've never worn out and needed replacement. More modern machine guns that should be better than the MAG aren't better by enough to justify throwing out perfectly good machine guns. It's similar story to the M2.
The fn weighs 4kg extra for no reason other than inferior engineering.
The PKM with 200-300 rounds weighs the same as the FN MAG. The mag is a shit garbage inefficiently heavy design.
it weighs 4kg more because it has a heavier barrel and thicker receiver, making it more robust, it can also sustain higher round counts due to its simpler bolt mechanism (as in performs less actions), thicker receiver, and barrels. The PKM is higher than the M240, but the maxim belt means that to properly carry it you must have the heavier feeding box, or else carry loose belts (which you should not do). Which is a semantic point but still the carrying weight of the gun is not that big of a difference.
Also the PKM receiver also has to be very long to accommodate the rimmed cartridge and the feeding mechanism, the MAG is only 2 inches longer than the PKM (even shorter on the 240 which has a shorter flash hider). The only real viable complaint is the weight difference which is either a detriment or a benefit depending on who you ask. It seems to me that this doesn't relegate the M240 into a "garbage gun" because you have some sort of beef against the extremely durable lever mechanism.
also if you're b***hing and moaning about this and haven't actually held, shot, or carried either you're gay and moronic.
lighter* not higher
>it weighs 4kg more because it has a heavier barrel and thicker receiver
Wrong. The fn has an inefficient locking system and general design which requires more steel to achieve the same effect.
>the maxim belt means that to properly carry it you must have the heavier feeding box
Wrong. Not only can the PKM also use disintegrating belts if desired nothing about the belt necessitates feeding boxes any more than a disintegrating belt.
>else carry loose belts (which you should not do)
(you should)
>weight difference which is either a detriment or a benefit
>additional weight a benefit
you are delusional
But I guess I wouldn't expect any less from a fcuking murheen
>Wrong
the M240 barrel is 640mm and weighs 6.6 pounds, the PKM weighs 5.3 pounds and is 5mm longer meaning is a thinner barrel profile and not capable of as high of a volume of sustained fire on a si gle barrel. this would necessitate the carrying of another barrel for the PKM to achieve the same effective rate of sustainable fire (again increasing the actual carry weight)
>disintegrating belts
didn't know this was a thing tbh but upon some cursory reading it seems this is a recent Ukranian invention and I have never seen an image or video of one being used. functionally 99% of users are probably still using maxim belts which do necessitate ammunition boxes because
>(you should
you absolutely should not run around with loose belts hanging off your gun if you can help it, because dirty belts break and jam guns.
You would know this if you've ever run a belt fed machine gun
>you are delusional
if you had run a belt fed machine gun you would know that off the tripod weight is absolutely your friend when trying to lay a tight beaten zone.
I readily acknowledged that MAG is heavier, but like anything else in design it is a compromise, the thicker receiver, heavier barrel, and elbow bolt means you have a longer mean service life and rate of sustained fire. I almost forgot to mention that the ability to disassemble the chrome lined gas block and regulator on the MAG is a nice benefit.
>fcuking murheen
lol you mean the people that actually use these weapons? Military service doesn't guarantee you are an expert on anything, especially small arms related. But we can read the same literature you can and we actually use these weapons and learn about them because it's our job.
Barrel changes are a meme. If you're shooting so much that you're in the need of a barrel change it would be a better idea to carry more ammo than an extra barrel anyhow.
>didn't know this was a thing tbh but upon some cursory reading it seems this is a recent Ukranian invention and I have never seen an image or video of one being used
Because it doesn't make any fricking difference, don't you understand?
>you absolutely should not run around with loose belts hanging off your gun if you can help it, because dirty belts break and jam guns.
This applies to all belt feds and is therefore irrelevant when making comparisons between them
>thicker receiver
Doesn't affect service life
>heavier barrel
There's a one pound difference and barrel weight is not very useful for making comparisons since people could just make a thicker barrel for the PKM if they wanted to without changing anything else.
>elbow bolt
This is you just guessing. There's a reason (almost) literally every new design that comes out uses a rotating bolt, it is the superior locking design, it is stronger, it is lighter. There is no reason to believe that an antiquated linkage lockup mechanism had a longer lifespan than a rotating bolt design with chunky AK locking lugs.
It was desgined by john Browning.
>It was desgined by john Browning.
From beyond the grave?
it's the BAR bolt design
Yeah
Because replacing the machine gun will never impact the outcome of a war. For small arms what matters is the numbers you can stockpile and produce them and the things you use with them like a radio, night vision, thermals, optics, ballistic computer. Then any rifle or machinegun can become great.
Because it works fine and everybody already uses it
Why change to something "better" and buy all new guns and redo all your training when you already have "good enough" and can just replace guns or parts piecemeal?
Simple.
Cheap.
Reliable.
No I'm not from the fricking east I'm a mechanical engineer and inefficiency in mechanical structural design infuriates me to no end. Especially if it's a product still being manufactured and used worldwide because it produces people like fricking you who think that it is a good design and that there couldn't possibly be anything else as good ever.
And yes I hate the M2 for all the same reasons.
>like fricking YOU
Hmm, assuming your self-description is true, I guess you could also just be a hormonal 19 year old, or thereabouts.
>who think... there couldn't possibly be anything else as good ever
Posts like
and another that calls the MAG "good enough" dispel your strawmanning.
You know, I actually have pics saved of the XM guns from ~2005-12 that were potential M2 replacements. And I tried asking people about KORD a month ago, because I'm aware of the M2's clunkiness.
I wouldn't want any discussion from you, though. You're some kinda yappy ankle biter.
Where did you find that picture of me?
>I'm a mechanical engineer
lol dude you hate how inefficient the locking mechanism is when in real life it works extremely well, has minimal parts wear, and fewer moving actions? You're calling it a shit gun but are ignoring literally everything else about the gun, and are trying to tell people who use this gun how bad it is. Quit being outraged so easily, they're both fine guns, both have advantages and disadvantages, in the field it is a great weapon.
>works extremely well
The world is full of antiquated things that work extremely well
>has minimal parts wear
Just like any well designed rotating bolt lock
>fewer moving actions
Are you shitting me right now?
>Does that factor in the barrel etc though?
yes see my other reply above, the 240/MAG has a heavier barrel than the PKM and is capable of a higher sustained rate of fire.
Give me $3 000 000 and three years and I'll give you a better GPMG than the FN MAG.
>Barrel changes are a meme. If you're shooting so much that you're in the need of a barrel change it would be a better idea to carry more ammo than an extra barrel anyhow.
And then your barrel explodes/your ammo starts cooking off/your gun seizes. You know, the reasons that these guns have quick change barrels in the first place. Surely though, you said that barrel changes are a meme with such authority. Please, tell me more about how you came to that conclusion. Surely, you must have been in multiple extended firefights, seeing as you know so much more than literally every firearms designer, ordinance board, and infantryman in the post-war period.
>Because it doesn't make any fricking difference, don't you understand?
Not qualified to say personally, but there are a million other reasons as to why it isn't standard. It also sounds very convienient, and I know for a fact that having a frickhuge non-disintegrating belt hanging off the side of your gun makes moving with it much harder.
>This applies to all belt feds and is therefore irrelevant when making comparisons between them
Fair enough.
>Doesn't affect service life
Not informed enough to say so decisively, but the M60 does have issues with receiver stretch and battlefield vegas does report that their stamped AK receivers tend to fail after a while. It's definitely something that can be designed around, but it's certainly a factor on some level.
>There's a one pound difference and barrel weight is not very useful for making comparisons since people could just make a thicker barrel for the PKM if they wanted to without changing anything else.
True.
>This is you just guessing. There's a reason (almost) literally every new design that comes out uses a rotating bolt, it is the superior locking design, it is stronger, it is lighter. There is no reason to believe that an antiquated linkage lockup mechanism had a longer lifespan than a rotating bolt design with chunky AK locking lugs.
And? The MAG still works, so people still buy them. You're not wrong, which is why FN's newer products use rotating bolts and why designers have moved away from tilting bolts, but the MAG still fricking works.
Gotcha. How's the PK handle? I've heard that they're pretty easy to swing around due to the lighter weight and center of mass closer to the firing hand.
Make a SLDASM file of your design, calculate the weight, then make a powerpoint explaining what your design does better than current designs, send it to me, and I will send you all of my $OGSM.
>then make a powerpoint explaining what your design does better than current designs
Why anon, the advantages of the gomutra cooled barrel are self evident. And let's face it, it can't turn out worse than insas, right?
Right?
Maybe it's because I'm tired but I thought you were OP for a second lmao.
Y-you too
Because they're sturdy as frick.
I seem to remember the 240s breaking firing pins all the time. They were far from troublefree even with modest yearly qualification firing schedules
The brits really miss their Vickers guns
frick ya mudda
Frick ya mudda