Ultimax Question.

[SMGLee]

You could be right, but if the USMC does chose an IAR it will most likely be the Ultimax 100 MK4 and it is considered to be a magazine feed light machine gun.

I agree with you on the Mk4, the test so far points to the Mk4 as the leader.

The magazine on the Ultimax has been altered to accept the M16 style magazine so the U100 will be able to utilize the new C-/drum and also the std M16 30 rounders.

 

[Chino]

I agree with you on the Mk4, the test so far points to the Mk4 as the leader.

You agree? Based on what? Have you fired one?

Next time you have a point to make... make it. Try not to debate with "have you ____ before etc".

 

[Chino]

as far as 100 replacing the SAW, have you read the IAR requirement? it is supposed to supplement the SAW, not replace it....

Explain how, Einstein, is the IAR supplementing the M249 without replacing some of them?

Is the USMC platoon gonna add IAR on top of all the existing M249? Is it gonna be a 15 or 20-men squad next?

Or are some of the M249 gonna be replaced by the IAR?

By mouthing off without knowing WTF you are talking about, doesn't make you sound smart or knowledgeable. Which is quite apparent you are not.

 

[kotay]

Explain how, Einstein, is the IAR supplementing the M249 without replacing some of them?

Is the USMC platoon gonna add IAR on top of all the existing M249? Is it gonna be a 15 or 20-men squad next?

Or are some of the M249 gonna be replaced by the IAR?

By mouthing off without knowing WTF you are talking about, doesn't make you sound smart or knowledgeable. Which is quite apparent you are not.

Each USMC Fire Team has 2xM16A4, 1xM203 and 1xM249 at the moment. It is very possible for an IAR to replace a current M16A4 and thereby supplement the SAW without replacing it.

2/7 Marines tested modified TOEs in 2001 at 29 Palms with the IAR included and no change in number of SAWs or Section/Platoon strength.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chino]

If we have to pick sides...

I am definitely NOT against U100.

In fact, quite the compete opposite. Fired it several times and loved it.

If anything, I am rooting for it.

I am merely saying, in the context of IAR, the LWRC stands a pretty good chance. Don't know about FN's entry.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

LWRC does not stand a chance. They think they can change the role of the support gunner by having a M4 looking weapon with only 30 round mags fire only 1 or 2 rounds into a bad guy and call that a squad support weapon no no no thats the job of the M16 and M4 but not the SAW or IAR. Please it does not work that way, the support gunner fires large ammonts of lead in the air(such as 100 round mags or more).

Here is what I see as the most likely winners of the IAR in order.

1. Ultimax 100 MK4, even though the IAR competition is still on going I think the Ultimax has already won.
2. Colt's version of the IAR.
3. FN's IAR though I have no idea what the heck they have.

....and I don't even need to list the LWRC because whats the point, their attitude of thinking they can change the way the support gunner is used is the verry reason why they lost already.

 

[tankee1981]

I have personally fired the U100 Mk3, an earlier version before and i can say it is the best weapon i have used so far. The recoil is almost non-existent, the rate of fire is good and extremely accurate for an automatic weapon.

This i am confident that the U100 Mk5 will be a very tough competitor to beat.

 

[Chino]

IMO - had the US adopted the Ultimax - a true SAW - instead of a sized-down GPMG like the M249, they would be no need for the USMC to go searching for a IAR today.

The U100 is hard to beat in the SAW, assault automatic weapon or a sustained fire role due to its QCB (The original 100-rd mag being irrelevant since the USMC require 100% STANAG compatibility).

In fact, when I read the first articles about the USMC IAR requirements, I thought the USMC was writing them so they can get their hands on the Ultimax.

BUT...

This is not the new SAW trials. It is the IAR trial.

Reading the detailed requirements from articles about the IAR trials, "accurate single shots from closed bolt" seemed to have crept in as a requirement (or it was there all along?).

So, does anyone know how U100 is addressing this requirement beyond adding a selective fire switch?

 

[Chino]

Each USMC Fire Team has 2xM16A4, 1xM203 and 1xM249 at the moment. It is very possible for an IAR to replace a current M16A4 and thereby supplement the SAW without replacing it.

2/7 Marines tested modified TOEs in 2001 at 29 Palms with the IAR included and no change in number of SAWs or Section/Platoon strength.

There are several such teams in the USMC squad of 12-men, which means 3 M249 per squad or more. Most articles I read says the IAR will replace some of the M249 in the squad as they are considered too cumbersome for FIBUA.

What you are saying that the IAR will replace a M16 is new.

But hey, I'm open to new ideas.

 

[kotay]

What you are saying that the IAR will replace a M16 is new.

But hey, I'm open to new ideas.

Actually I was only replying hypothetically to how the the IAR can possibly "supplementing the M249 without replacing some of them".

I doubt that this is what the USMC will be doing since it doesn't really solve the mobility issue at the FT level, something that the IAR is supposed to address.

The trials conducted by 2/7 had a preferred TOE as follows

FT1 - M16, M16, IAR, M203
FT2 - M16, M16, IAR, M203
FT3 - M16, M249, M249, M249

In a sense, the above is also another example of the IAR replacing and supplementing the M249.

A more dramatic TOE trialled was as follows

SQUAD 1 - (M16, M16, IAR, M203) x 3
SQUAD 2 - (M16, M16, IAR, M203) x 3
SQUAD 3 - (M16, M249, M249, M249) x 3

As I had said previously, the number of M249s remained the same. So in a sense, the IAR had displaced a M16A4.

Whether the trial has any bearing on the actual implementation remains to be seen.

 

[kotay]

Just thinking aloud ...

I wonder if the genesis of the USMC IAR program may have been due to a joint exercise the SAF had with the USMC in Guam, in the mid 90s.

We sent a company of Guardsmen over, did a "friendship march" and a joint attack. What they did find surprising was our speed of tactical movement, especially our fire movement or leap-and-bounds. Their O-group came over afterwards to have a closer look at our TOE and did pay some attention to our U100s ... it being the only small arms we have that is unfamiliar to them.

The soft sell we did must have piqued their interest enough that they changed the training program to include a fam shoot where quite a few senior NCOs and officers (including a full colonel) turned up. It's rather amusing how a weapon like the U100 always raises the eyebrows of shooters who have never come across it.

In hindsight, I wonder if the Master Gunnery Sergeant and the Colonel had anything to say to some well placed higher ups after that ...

 

[Chino]

To further my question about "how U100 will address the accurate single shot" problem is this:

- the LWRC fires single shots from a closed bolt like an M16. Thus it will be as accurate as an M16.

- our Ultimax is (probably) designed as an "open-bolt only" design. So whenever you fire single shot the long bolt travel before ignition will slightly spoil your aim, especially when not used on bipod.

- Its "accuracy" per se is not in question especially in being able to deliver very controllable long bursts. We are only talking about "accurate single shots". It's not like you'd be wide-off-the-mark, but generally accepted to be inferior to one firing semi from a closed bolt.

- And ignition is also a wee bit slower than a closed bolt semi like the LWRC. I remember firing it the first time it almost felt like nothing is happening after squeezing trigger. (An exaggeration, of course...) And the trigger also felt funny, very soft - unlike the M16.

 

[Chino]

What the LWRC supporters don't say is that the U100 has a much higher muzzle velocity.

Just playing devil's advocate...

A magazine article about IAR showed a "para" version of the Ultimax with STANAG magazine housing. So if the para version with short barrel is being trialled, then muzzle velocity will also degrade.

The U100 has been around for quite some time and operationally, its features are meant to fulfil the saw role. Issues like maintenance, drums, magazines, bipods are something that has gone through years of operational use and refinement.

Again, looking at it from the other side, the LWRC needs little to no retraining for US servicemen as it is basically an M16. The term "muscle memory" was used to describe how US Marines will be able to pick up a LWRC straightaway. Whereas the U100 will take some getting used to.

Regarding bipods, the IAR version of the U100 does not have a bipod but uses the grip pod. IMO it is neither a good grip nor a good bipod as it sits too far from the muzzle for stability.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chino]

Previous US trials on open bolt vs closed bolts have highlighted significant differences in accuracy. ...Anyone who has fired the U100, yourself included, would have an idea of how accurate the U100 can be.

Remember as a recruit how the instructors would balance a coin on the barrel of your (unloaded) rifle and ask you to squeeze trigger? If the coin falls off, it means you "jerked" the trigger - thus spoiling your aim.

Same theory with a open bolt, there is simply too much movement before ignition that has the potential of spoiling your aim: upon squeezing trigger, bolt group lunge forward, chambers a round, and then ignition.

For myself, the U100 will take down the enemy even on a single round fire basis at the necessary range. I don't think there is a significant difference in accuracy but whether that accuracy vis a vis the LWRC is something that the USMC can accept is another matter.

And I have no doubt you can. But it is accepted fact amongst gun makers that open bolt effects accuracy. No one however, is saying that you will go completely WOWO.

That's not part of the requirement. It however has an indirect impact on accuracy concerns.

Hmmm.... How did I get the impression it was a requirement...? The U100 for IAR trials has an added selective fire switch so I am quite sure semi is a requirement. Perhaps it is the "closed bolt" part that's not required?

I agree that the short barrel will degrade the mv. However, doesn't that apply to the LWRC?

It was in answer to your point that the U100 has significantly higher MZ. I am merely pointing out that this is because the normal U100 has a very long barrel. If the Para version is pitted against the LWRC of a similar length barrel, there would be little difference.

It wasn't difficult for the SAF who have 18 year old conscripts learning to fire the U100 with minimal training. ...The USMC's marines aren't dumber than 18 year old Singaporeans. And the USMC aren't going to throw LWRCs at marines either. Barrel change, non-common parts, bipod use etc still require briefings.

It's just a LWRC sales brochure point. No one is saying it will derail the U100's chances of success.

Remember the LWRC hasn't been adopted by anyone for any reasonable length of time or used in the field. Can we clearly identify what are the problems associated with the LWRC? I doubt so. Will there be problems? Of course, a perfect rifle has not yet been invented.

Good point.

And up till now all attempts at making the AR (assault rifle) into a SAW/auto rifle has not been very successful. Probably the most widely issued is the RPK. Britain tried it with the LSW.

Let's hope they fail this time as well for nothing would please me more than to see US Marines toting the Ultimax into battle for world peace.

But if the LWRC works as advertised, I really do believe it is a very significant step in the evolution of the amazing M16 platform.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[gary1910]

Remember there is always political angle that need to be considered, for example US SF are forced to replace their HK416 by MoD recently, eventhough it was specifically design with inputs from US SF.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chino]

The U100 was designed by an American...

An American LEGEND, more like...

It will be a incredible story to tell if the weapon designed by Jim Sullivan finally finds its way back to America - after 20 years.