Re: Machinegun Weights

[Shawn Mulock <salamndr@xxxxxxxx>]

Jeff Pawlowski wrote:

> --- 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).
>

Absolutely, I was just wondering if he listed the MG36 with its loaded
weight, the way ME/Thomas does every thing else. I am thinking he did...

> 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.
>

I think the reason it has such a low cyclic rate is due to the
aforementioned ridiculously low weight of ~4.1kg. The designers may have
determined one or more things... that the weapon has better control, allows
for better use of ammunition in the weapon's intended role and most likely
that the barrel will burnout/warp/explode/cause a runaway(cook-off)/ruin the
head space etc. with such a light weapon/barrel. (For those who have
little/no experience with MGs these concerns are common to all MGs, I assure
you.)

=)

S.