Comparism between SAWs
-
The SAF uses the Ultimax series as SAW in an infantry section. The US uses the FN Minimi M249. I read from a wedsite: (http://www.phoenixcommand.com/Ultimax100.htm) which states that our SAW is a contender together with the Minimi for US Army's SAW contest ,however the Minimi is chosen before the Ultimax can be perfected. My question is how is our latest model of Ultimax compared with the current Minimi which the US is using? If theirs is superior then will we be changing any time soon?
-
we are going to change to a SAR version, at least that is what i was told when i went back for reservist this year and had my SAR conversion.Even show us the prototype picture,looks just like a SAR 21 but maybe modified a bit and a bipod added
-
Both are equally good saw.Originally posted by tankee1981:The SAF uses the Ultimax series as SAW in an infantry section. The US uses the FN Minimi M249. I read from a wedsite: (http://www.phoenixcommand.com/Ultimax100.htm) which states that our SAW is a contender together with the Minimi for US Army's SAW contest ,however the Minimi is chosen before the Ultimax can be perfected. My question is how is our latest model of Ultimax compared with the current Minimi which the US is using? If theirs is superior then will we be changing any time soon?
In term of weight and control - Utimate has the upper hand.
In term of flexibility in ammo - FN Minimi can use both M16 Mag and belts ( adv can link ammo belts ) . The Utimate use M16 and drum - but drum need tools to load ammo, which is not practical.
Other than that both are equal.
Yes the Utimax came out too late for consideration for the US army trial. -
The ad for the Ultimax (last time) is that it is the lightest SAW in the world. ha ha ha... tell that to that NSman SAW gunner!!
Anyway. I think that our Ultimax light weight is a plus point in that we Asian are smaller frame and the SAF is a conscript army.
But the Ultimax is not without issues.
I think that having a SAR version of the SAW is a step back in terms of firepower. I can't imagine how a weapon designed to be a rifle can have the capability of a machine gun. there has to be some compromise like greater wear and tear... limit on the rpm etc....
I think that SAF should soldier on with the Ultimax. and then when the SAR devleopment and deployment is completed, they should build another SAW that uses the SAR21's magazine and have a belt feed like the M249 instead of the 100-rd drum. -
You are assuming they retain the bolt and other mechanisms inside the SAR21 for the LMG variant?Originally posted by spencer99:I think that having a SAR version of the SAW is a step back in terms of firepower. I can't imagine how a weapon designed to be a rifle can have the capability of a machine gun. there has to be some compromise like greater wear and tear... limit on the rpm etc.... -
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/special%20applications/mg43.html
The new , improved US Squad Automatic Weapon? Who knows. -
Any Ultimax gunners here?There was this ad. which also says that the Ultimax has the lightest recoil and allows the firer to rest the butt against his nose which when doing so wth other SAWs will result in the firer getting a bloody nose!Is this true?
-
Saw gunner reporting.
Ultimax mark3 is great interchangeable barrel , good balance, very accurate....
if u are big size = no recoil , but same size = run alway gun. -
lolzOriginally posted by SpecOps87:Any Ultimax gunners here?There was this ad. which also says that the Ultimax has the lightest recoil and allows the firer to rest the butt against his nose which when doing so wth other SAWs will result in the firer getting a bloody nose!Is this true? -
I went for live firing using the Ultimax SAW before and I was pretty impressed with its recoil. Nearly couldn't feel a damn thing when firing.
-
And very Accurate too. -
i am a big sized dood, i used the saw b4 and there is no recoil, just sad that, the ultimax is being phased out, a very good and light SAW
-
The Ultimax is a really good weapon.
It is of course not without faults. The drum magazine feed has its advantages and disadvantages. I have argued for the Ultimax drum/mag system against the Minimi or Negev belt/mag system with people in other forums before.
The Europeans, Israelis and Americans pointed out that the weight and recoil of the Minimi (or the Negev for Israel) is no problem for them, and that a 100-round belt for the Minimi weighs the same or less than a 100-round drum for the Ultimax. And they pointed out that after firing off the 100-round drum for the Ultimax, you still have to carry the empty drum, which you don't with a belt system.
And they say that changing a belt or carrying belted ammo is no more difficult than the Ultimax 100-round drums, which is also quite unwieldy to carry and change.
Finally, they pointed out that a 100-round drum cannot compare to a 250-round belt in terms of firepower.
My argument was that out Ultimax was designed for a more mobile assault role in mind. Therefore a mag feed to easier to handle during an assault. And that you don't want to be running and shooting from a weapon that has a 200-round weight. And because the Ultimax is light, it is more suitable for the assault than a belt-fed Minimi or Negev.
So it became a matter of belt vs drum. Most foreigners felt the belt system was better.
The Minimi and Negev SAWs are both "sized-down" GPMGs.
And then there is another form of SAW is the "up-gunned" assault rifle like the M16-HB or the SA-80 LSW.
Only the Ultimax is a "pure" SAW design right from the start. It follows in the footsteps of both the magazine-fed WW2 SAW like the US BAR and British Bren - but with a big magazine capacity of 100-rounds.
Most of the world now use the first option which is the "sized-down" SAW. The rest of the world use the "up-gunned" assault rifle.
Britain now uses an up-gunned version of their SA-80 bullpup rifle. This poor-excuse for a SAW can only use 30-round mags. To me, this is the worst SAW solution. As someone put it, it has a built-in stoppage every 30-rounds - when you have to change magazines.
And with the mag situated at the rear, it is difficult to change mags especially in awkward positions. And being the automatic weapon, you would be changing 30-round mags very often. So if SAF decides to go this route with the SAR-21 then they are making a very serious mistake.
If the Ultimax cannot use SAR-21 magazines then it is a very simple thing to come up with a model that can. But I think the ONLY solution is to make the SAR-21 use M-16 mags. That the SAR-21 cannot use M-16 mags is a serious logistical and tactical flaw.
That the SAR-21 cannnot mount a bayonet is the next idiotic thing, but that's another topic.
ABOUT THE ULTIMAX'S "LEGENDARY ACCURACY"
That the Ultimax is very accurate is really relative. It may be more accurate compared to the M-16 firing auto or other similarly lightweight SAWs but to say that it is very accurate is an overstatement.
I've fired the SAW in semi (at the range) and the results were very good. Then I fired it in very short bursts and the results were quite good.
But in my reservists unit, when the men were at the range, the SAW gunners produced horribly poor results. Most of them were told to squeeze short bursts but still, some gunners NEVER hit the window-sized targets AT ALL! -
anyway if u guy have practical experience with the SAW 100 rounds drum mag, you will know that it is not practical too, reason? The damn mag can only be machine loaded for it to be full ,you try loading it manually and it can nvr go beyond 40 plus rounds.So to say that current SAW really has 100 rounds capability is a slight misnomal as you will not have ready logistic support whenever u need to reload the thing,ending up u will still be stuck most of the time in using the 30 rounds mag.
Well this is my personal experience as well as all the people i know who handle SAW b4.If any of you guys really have experience loading a full 100 rounds into the drum manually then i have nothing to say. -
TVdog,Originally posted by tvdog:The Ultimax is a really good weapon.
It is of course not without faults. The drum magazine feed has its advantages and disadvantages. I have argued for the Ultimax drum/mag system against the Minimi or Negev belt/mag system with people in other forums before.
The Europeans, Israelis and Americans pointed out that the weight and recoil of the Minimi (or the Negev for Israel) is no problem for them, and that a 100-round belt for the Minimi weighs the same or less than a 100-round drum for the Ultimax. And they pointed out that after firing off the 100-round drum for the Ultimax, you still have to carry the empty drum, which you don't with a belt system.
And they say that changing a belt or carrying belted ammo is no more difficult than the Ultimax 100-round drums, which is also quite unwieldy to carry and change.
Finally, they pointed out that a 100-round drum cannot compare to a 250-round belt in terms of firepower.
My argument was that out Ultimax was designed for a more mobile assault role in mind. Therefore a mag feed to easier to handle during an assault. And that you don't want to be running and shooting from a weapon that has a 200-round weight. And because the Ultimax is light, it is more suitable for the assault than a belt-fed Minimi or Negev.
So it became a matter of belt vs drum. Most foreigners felt the belt system was better.
The Minimi and Negev SAWs are both "sized-down" GPMGs.
And then there is another form of SAW is the "up-gunned" assault rifle like the M16-HB or the SA-80 LSW.
Only the Ultimax is a "pure" SAW design right from the start. It follows in the footsteps of both the magazine-fed WW2 SAW like the US BAR and British Bren - but with a big magazine capacity of 100-rounds.
Most of the world now use the first option which is the "sized-down" SAW. The rest of the world use the "up-gunned" assault rifle.
Britain now uses an up-gunned version of their SA-80 bullpup rifle. This poor-excuse for a SAW can only use 30-round mags. To me, this is the worst SAW solution. As someone put it, it has a built-in stoppage every 30-rounds - when you have to change magazines.
And with the mag situated at the rear, it is difficult to change mags especially in awkward positions. And being the automatic weapon, you would be changing 30-round mags very often. So if SAF decides to go this route with the SAR-21 then they are making a very serious mistake.
If the Ultimax cannot use SAR-21 magazines then it is a very simple thing to come up with a model that can. But I think the ONLY solution is to make the SAR-21 use M-16 mags. That the SAR-21 cannot use M-16 mags is a serious logistical and tactical flaw.
That the SAR-21 cannnot mount a bayonet is the next idiotic thing, but that's another topic.
ABOUT THE ULTIMAX'S "LEGENDARY ACCURACY"
That the Ultimax is very accurate is really relative. It may be more accurate compared to the M-16 firing auto or other similarly lightweight SAWs but to say that it is very accurate is an overstatement.
I've fired the SAW in semi (at the range) and the results were very good. Then I fired it in very short bursts and the results were quite good.
But in my reservists unit, when the men were at the range, the SAW gunners produced horribly poor results. Most of them were told to squeeze short bursts but still, some gunners NEVER hit the window-sized targets AT ALL!
Yes as you say it is used for special mobile assualt, then your argument is correct.
But SAW = section Automatic Weapon, that mean is every infantry section squad auto weapon. They are more likely to be use in very defensive position or fire support. Then the case of belt magzine is advantage ! In prolong engagement, you can clip on a new belt when the existing is running short. You cannot do that for Ultimax 100, in fact what the logic of someone having to carry a extra tools just to load a 100 rds mag ? think they rather carry an extra belt of ammo. -
Yes I did that, and it never touches my nose, the recoil is so much less then a M16. very controllable, you can shoot a straight line and cut the whole target.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Any Ultimax gunners here?There was this ad. which also says that the Ultimax has the lightest recoil and allows the firer to rest the butt against his nose which when doing so wth other SAWs will result in the firer getting a bloody nose!Is this true? -
On the contrary.....Originally posted by storywolf:TVdog,
Yes as you say it is used for special mobile assualt, then your argument is correct.
But SAW = section Automatic Weapon, that mean is every infantry section squad auto weapon. They are more likely to be use in very defensive position or fire support. Then the case of belt magzine is advantage ! In prolong engagement, you can clip on a new belt when the existing is running short. You cannot do that for Ultimax 100, in fact what the logic of someone having to carry a extra tools just to load a 100 rds mag ? think they rather carry an extra belt of ammo.
Let's say you are in a section and ammo runs out for M-16. You can strip the rounds off your SAW drums and pass them to the grunts. It's difficult to do that for M249 belt.
If SAW needs more ammo, hand over some M-16 mags to the SAW gunner.
The current situation is awkward but likely to be temporary. Becos of the SAR-21 introduction, section now cannot share std 30-rd mag. Also, note that the SAF is still using the M16/M203 as opposed to a SAR-21 based version. And as you all know, the mags are not-exchangable.
The fact that both the SAW and the M203 are not replaced suggests three things:
- Stupid commanders and politicans? (can't be based on track record)
- Phased-in replacement of SAW and M203 --> SAR-21 based (ouch! poor choice)
- New products on the horizon?
Southpark
The Dude -
The fact that the Ultimax drum cannot be re-loaded in the field was often used to attack the Ultimax. But this is unfair. Running out of pre-loaded drum magazines means you have a ammo and logistic supply problem situation. It's not a problem with the drums not being reloadable. Cos belts are not reloadable either. If you have a ammo supply problem situation with a belt-fed SAW, you'd be no better off cos then you'd be out of belts.
What did it for me was the fact that you still have to carry the bulky empty drums after using them.
The Russians used pan magazine SAW called the RPD (I think) in WW2.
Then they swiched to belt-fed SAWs in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Then they switched to using an "up-gunned" AK-47 called the RPK with a silly 40-round curved box magazine.
Don't know what they are using now.
The Chinese, on the other hand, have developed a Minimi-type LMG in their unique 5.8mm calibre. But at the same time, their current new service weapon the 5.8mm QBZ-97 bullpup also has a SAW version.
So I am curious as to what roles they have assigned to each weapon. -
The plus points of SAW are light and very little recoil..
The minus points are it seemed to be made of cheaply produced 'stamp' metal and the parts dun slide very well and prone to rust.
Under range conditions there's no problem, but does anyone have any comments after using it in field condition?
Well, during BCTC, I dragged it through sand and mudwater and after that, the thing can't even fire! Generally, getting the SAW to fire smoothly in the field seems to be a tricky business of playing around with the gas regulator and keeping the weapon very clean... Unfortunately, there were a few times when the weapon failed me during crucial moments...
Personally, if firepower (ie. a lot of noise) is required of me, I'll carry the trusty GPMG with a box of ammo... seems to be the best MG in the world today... even the US has discarded the M60 in favour of it... though no one in the world seems to be using the SAW except us...
-
100 rounds?Originally posted by GenX:anyway if u guy have practical experience with the SAW 100 rounds drum mag, you will know that it is not practical too, reason? The damn mag can only be machine loaded for it to be full ,you try loading it manually and it can nvr go beyond 40 plus rounds.So to say that current SAW really has 100 rounds capability is a slight misnomal as you will not have ready logistic support whenever u need to reload the thing,ending up u will still be stuck most of the time in using the 30 rounds mag.
Well this is my personal experience as well as all the people i know who handle SAW b4.If any of you guys really have experience loading a full 100 rounds into the drum manually then i have nothing to say.
I gave up after 4 rounds... -
sar21/m203 is going to replace the m-16/m203 comboOriginally posted by southpark2000:On the contrary.....
Let's say you are in a section and ammo runs out for M-16. You can strip the rounds off your SAW drums and pass them to the grunts. It's difficult to do that for M249 belt.
If SAW needs more ammo, hand over some M-16 mags to the SAW gunner.
The current situation is awkward but likely to be temporary. Becos of the SAR-21 introduction, section now cannot share std 30-rd mag. Also, note that the SAF is still using the M16/M203 as opposed to a SAR-21 based version. And as you all know, the mags are not-exchangable.
The fact that both the SAW and the M203 are not replaced suggests three things:
- Stupid commanders and politicans? (can't be based on track record)
- Phased-in replacement of SAW and M203 --> SAR-21 based (ouch! poor choice)
- New products on the horizon?
Southpark
The Dude -
SAR21 has a version with a front grip , but it does not have a LAD.Talking about the SAW, it is true that you can fire from a shoulder position.It is a good gun.But the flaws lie in the structure anf the placement of the trigger mech, you have to place it in the lower receiver with only your hands and not your eyes.
-
i used the saw for 6 months when i was an OCT but i remembered saw magazines are different from m16 being e fact that saw magazines need to have 2 holes punched cos e saw magazine housing holds onto e magazine by those 2 holesOriginally posted by southpark2000:On the contrary.....
Let's say you are in a section and ammo runs out for M-16. You can strip the rounds off your SAW drums and pass them to the grunts. It's difficult to do that for M249 belt.
If SAW needs more ammo, hand over some M-16 mags to the SAW gunner.
The current situation is awkward but likely to be temporary. Becos of the SAR-21 introduction, section now cannot share std 30-rd mag. Also, note that the SAF is still using the M16/M203 as opposed to a SAR-21 based version. And as you all know, the mags are not-exchangable.
The fact that both the SAW and the M203 are not replaced suggests three things:
- Stupid commanders and politicans? (can't be based on track record)
- Phased-in replacement of SAW and M203 --> SAR-21 based (ouch! poor choice)
- New products on the horizon?
Southpark
The Dude
i used e saw back in 97/98 so not sure if new generation saw magazines are same as normal m16 mag... -
Yeah, becoz of the ejection mechanism.
-
New Polish Minimi copy:
