Re: Machinegun Weights

[Jeff Pawlowski <blackeagleblackeagle@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Shawn Mulock <salamndr@3web.net> wrote:

> Could it be that he classified it with the loaded
> weight due to the nature
> of the beast, it having a Drum Magazine?

The reason I'm bringing it up is because the listings
make the HK G36MG look considerablely heavier than the
belt-fed MGs.  On the otherhand, if all the weights
were unloaded, you could see the comparable
differences (or all loaded).

> I have no hard data on the M86A1 (one of those holes
> I was talking about!)
> Is it possible that he listed the majority of the
> MGs with no ammo, due to
> their using belted ammo?

My main focus is on the Stoner 96.  It is an updated
86A1, but has had such considerable changes made by
KAC that it really is its own model designation.  It
comes in at a ridiculously light (for belt fed LGMs)
at ~4.1kg unloaded.  It has MUCH of the same external
parts for the KAC Rail System on the top and
handguards.  It also uses the M4 buttstock.  It was
obviously designed to oust the M249 since it will do
belt and STANAG 30-round mags.  The reliability of
Stoner designs and KAC tinkering make this a really
viable weapon.  The only thing that bothers me is the
600RPM RoF, which is slower than many other designs.


=====
Jeff Pawlowski
Millennium's End: Officially Unofficial
http://www.millenniumsend.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/