Signup
LoginBest Choice for USMC Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)?
98 posts
-
-
Singaporean Option: Ultimax 100 MK4 by ST
The 5.56x45mm Ultimax 100 LMG/SAW (Light Machine Gun/Squad Automatic Weapon) was originally designed and developed (along with its 100-shot drum magazine) from scratch in the late 1970's/early 1980's by Jim Sullivan (L. James Sullivan) and his design/development partner Bob Waterfield for then Chartered Industries of Singapore, a.k.a. CIS (now Singapore Technologies Kinetics Land Systems, a.k.a. ST Kinetics Land Systems). It is considered by many small arms experts to be the best 5.56mm light machine gun/squad automatic weapon (LMG/SAW) in the history of the world. DefenseReview has been writing about the Ultimax 100 LMG/SAW virtually since our inception. And, in the last year or so, we've discussed the Ultimax quite a bit. In our article on Noveske Rifleworks Weapons packages, we discussed not only what's important about he Ultimax, but also how and why it's superior to the U.S. Army's current light machine gun/squad automatic weapon (LMG/SAW), the problematic/subpar FN M249 SAW. We also mentoned the Ultimax 100 SAW in two of our articles on the Auto-Assault-12 Shotgun (AA-12 Shotgun): our first-ever blurb on the AA-12, and our more extensive article on the AA-12 and FRAG-12 12-gauge armor-piercing grenade family, published subsequently.
The reason we bring all this up is because Vincent L. Deniro (CEO) and Brian Vuksanovich (Chief Engineer) at American Defense Management, Inc. (ADM) have developed a bunch of modifications to the Ultimax 100 MK3 for VT Kinetics/Vision Technologies Systems, Inc. (VT Systems, Inc.) to create the...
Ultimax 100 MK4 LMG/SAW (5.56mm). One of these modifications is a 4179 STANAG AR-15/M16 magazine adapter that allows the Ultimax MK4 to accept both 30-round AR-15/M16 mags and 100-shot Beta C-MAGs.
A Note on the C-MAG: The original C-MAG was also designed and developed by Jim Sullivan. Before The BETA Company (a.k.a. BETA Co.) changed the TDP (technical data package) on the C-MAG, the original design's double-drum magazine body was made from a type of nylon, and the center feed portion (box mag portion) was made of steel and didn't rise above the double-drum portion like it does now. Both of these material aspects were on purpose. Because the double-drum portion was made of nylon, the original C-MAG worked reliably without the need for any type of lubricant. In other words, it didn't require graphite powder lubrication to move the ammo/cartridges around the drums reliably. BETA Co. changed the nylon double-drum portion to a different material (a type of plastic/polymer) and changed the center feed portion to polymer/plastic, in the process making the center feed portion taller (due to the need to reinforce this part to prevent cracking/sheering during firing). One good thing the BETA Co. has done to the BETA C-MAG recently is to make the back plate of the C-MAG clear (Lexan), just like the latest factory Ultimax 100 drum mag (also 100-shots) back plate, so the operator can keep track of his ammo supply visually, during the fight.
The Ultimax 100 MK4 fires from the open-bolt, fires at a cyclic rate/rate-of-fire (ROF) of 400-600 RPM (Rounds-Per-Minute), and can be adjusted between these two rates by the operator. The MK4 can be had with a 13-inch barrel, side-folding buttstock, and Mil-Std-1913 rail system on top of the receiver (for mounting optics, lasers, etc.) and on the forend at the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions for mounting additional accessories (tactical white lights, lasers, vertical foregrips, etc.). Just like all versions of the Ultimax before it, the Ultimax MK4 utilizes the "Constant-Recoil" principle (invented by Jim Sullivan specifically for the Ultimax) to control recoil, instead of relying on receiver weight, like other machine guns. Constant-Recoil is what allows the Ultimax to outhit heavier machine guns (chambered in the same caliber) on full-auto. By greatly reducing felt-recoil and muzzle rise, weapon controllability on full-auto is greatly increased. The result is more hits on target. This recoil attenuation/mitigation aspect makes the Ultimax the most contollable LMG/SAW in the world, even though it's also the lightest-weight LMG/SAW in the world.
So, how does Constant-Recoil actually work? In a sentence, it spreads the weapon's recoil impulse out over time. So, instead of the shooter receiving a sudden jolt to his shoulder, he receives a slow, constant push. The Ultimax utilizes a relatively long receiver length to accomplish this. The long receiver combined with recoil spring weight keeps the bolt carrier group from impacting the rear of the receiver when the weapon is fired. It's this impact that normally transfers most of the recoil impulse to the shooter, especially since it happens so quickly (over a very short period of time). In contrast, when the Ultimax is fired, the bolt carrier group runs out on the recoil spring, never making contact with the rear of the receiver. Then, as the bolt carrier group runs back forward, it impacts the barrel extension, knocking the weapon forward and causing the muzzle to dip, whereupon the next round is fired (We're firing on full-auto, remember?). So, as the weapon goes into recoil again, it has to overcome the weapon's forward momentum, as well as the barrel's downward movement, so half of the weapon's recoil forces are spent fighting against this forward movement, and then the bolt carrier group has to make the long trek towards the rear of the receiver, again. This whole process spreads the recoil force on the operator out over a greater period of time, making the weapon feel like its steadily pushing on the operator, instead of pounding against him. So, the weapon just sits there, staying on target during full-auto fire, even though it weighs so little.
The practical benefits of all this are huge. Believe it or not, Ultimax offers an 8:1 hit-ratio advantage over the M16 rifle when both are fired offhand on full-auto side by side against multiple targets, including moving targets. When both weapons are fired from the bi-pod, the Ultimax offers a 2.5:1 hit ratio advantage over the M16. The box/drum mag-fed Ultimax 100 LMG/SAW will outhit the belt-fed FN M249 SAW and MK46 MOD 0/1 at 3-times the range, on full-auto, even though it weighs considerably less (9-10.1 lbs, depending on the configuration vs. a listed 16.75 lbs for the M249 SAW).
The box-magazine/drum-magazine/double-drum magazine-fed Ultimax 100 MK4 is also much faster and easier to reload in a fight than the M249 SAW, especially in a dynamic, fluid situation like a running gun battle/firefight while the infantryman is firing on-the-move. In this situation, it's nice to be able to reload quickly and relatively easily on the move as well, which the Ultimax allows an operator to do. You can reload the Ultimax on the move in a few seconds. Try that with an M249. Good luck to you.
The Ultimax can be reloaded as quickly and easily as an assault rifle, since it's magazine-fed, rather than belt-fed. As it happens, the Ultimax 100 series is also significantly more reliable under adverse/combat conditions and high-round-count than the FN M249.
In fact, the Ultimax is so good that noted gunwriter Charlie Cutshaw, in his article on the Ultimax 100 MK4 for the latest issue of Special Weapons for Military & Police (SWMP), states that the Ultimax 100 MK3/MK4 makes for the best existing answer to the U.S. Marine Corps' (USMC) stated requirements for a "Non-developmental, 5.56mm, Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)". Defense Review wholeheartedly agrees. The Marines could certainly do a lot worse. Incidentally, the Ultimax 100 MK4 is the cover gun of this issue (#42).
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=853Edited by tankee1981 02 Jan `08, 4:48AM
-
-
-
Why USMC is looking for Ultimax as a new IAR?
Here is a very likely reason:
http://www.ultimaxsaw.com/Ultimax%20vs.%20M-249.html
-
-
-
US Option: IAR by LWRC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravWDN2OcwE
Advantage of being able to fire in single shots as opposed to only auto for our Ultimax.
Lets discuss the chances of our Ultimax Mk 4 wining this US IAR...disregarding politics of course...
Edited by tankee1981 02 Jan `08, 4:42AM
-
-
-
Originally posted by tankee1981:Why USMC is looking for Ultimax as a new IAR?
Here is a very likely reason:
http://www.ultimaxsaw.com/Ultimax%20vs.%20M-249.htmlThis link didn't work for me.
What is it saying?
-
-
-
Originally posted by tankee1981:
[b]US Option: IAR by LWRC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravWDN2OcwE
Advantage of being able to fire in single shots as opposed to only auto for our Ultimax.
Lets discuss the chances of our Ultimax Mk 4 wining this US IAR...disregarding politics of course... [/b]the mark 4 has semi auto too on the selector switch I think ....
-
-
-
Originally posted by SpecOps87:I saw something in FutureWeapons...it looks like an M4 or FN SCAR,
TS posted the shortened Youtube version of this programme.
I work in a media-related industry so forgive my cynicism. If you know how much lies and propaganda are fed to the public everyday, you too will become very cynical. All these PR-sales material that companies pay the media to present as facts or news.
Someone must've paid Discovery channel a lot of money to do a programme featuring what is nothing more than a modified M4. And the bald guy is talking about it like it is the latest bestest earth shattering technology.
(I understand the USMC is only interested in a off-the-shelf weapon... But...yawn... aren't there any other contenders out there?)
And the manufacturer's marketing savvy doesn't stop there: There is a great BIG logo on the magazine housing that says Infantry Automatic Rifle as if this is already the official IAR. And there are many closeup shots of that logo with the bald guy's finger somewhere there.
As I watched this docummentary I begin to get the feeling I am watching a slick " info-mercial ". I was half expecting them to flash a phone number at the end and say first 20 callers will get a discount.
Also, in the film they have a couple of guys who are supposedly active SF. And being active SF means they were giving only fake names and faces are covered.
Yeah, right. If I have to believe every masked man with fake names is a SF....
-
-
-
The truth is that the Ultimax is indeed one of the best, if not the very best infantry automatic weapon....from firsthand experience, although it jams often when using blanks, when feed with the right ammo, it is extremely accurate....never seen anything so accurate before, in full-auto.
Its also extremely light for its class of weapon.
The only thing is, westerners simply won't choose it.
-
-
-
Originally posted by specialOps:The truth is that the Ultimax is indeed one of the best, if not the very best infantry automatic weapon....from firsthand experience, although it jams often when using blanks, when feed with the right ammo, it is extremely accurate....never seen anything so accurate before, in full-auto.
Its also extremely light for its class of weapon.
The only thing is, westerners simply won't choose it.Lets hope USMC will at least dump our Ultimax out when we are at 2nd place just like the BX. A least we know that our product really works but lost due to US politics.
-
-
-
Originally posted by specialOps:The truth is that the Ultimax is indeed one of the best, if not the very best infantry automatic weapon....from firsthand experience, although it jams often when using blanks, when feed with the right ammo, it is extremely accurate....never seen anything so accurate before, in full-auto.
Its also extremely light for its class of weapon.
The only thing is, westerners simply won't choose it.correction ..... not just any blanks ... the SAF blanks .... some so bad it barely makes a fart ....
-
-
-
Originally posted by tankee1981:
[b]US Option: IAR by LWRC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravWDN2OcwE
Advantage of being able to fire in single shots as opposed to only auto for our Ultimax.
Lets discuss the chances of our Ultimax Mk 4 wining this US IAR...disregarding politics of course... [/b]did anyone see the video?
The host said that the demo weapon fire from 'open bolt' (first of all all machine gun fire from open bolt), and that it prevent cooked off (very true) and that is "cool" the weapon (ok, i can accept that).
there was demo... first the host first a standard M4 with rapid fire... and then pour some water over the barrel, the barrel sizzle with steam... ok ok...
and then first a full mag, full-auto.. on the "IAR". after that the host release the bolt and put a bare finger on the bolt and note that it is cool...
please lah... the 'heat' is in the barrel! the IAR have a small barrel, i doubt is will be cooled all that much.. open bolt or not...
I dare the host to put his finger on the barrel or strip the weapon and put it on the chamber... and see how much heat the open bolt will help reduce....
-
-
-
Originally posted by spencer99:
please lah... the 'heat' is in the barrel! the IAR have a small barrel, i doubt is will be cooled all that much.. open bolt or not...Even though I see the video as a pathetic sales attempt, I do respect the LWRC IAR shorty. It looks quite controllable in FA.
And being able to fire single shots from a closed bolt, and fullauto from an open bolt, is no small matter.
Single shots from a closed bolt is crucial for accuracy. This makes the Colt IAR a true " Rifle ". Full-auto from an open bolt is crucial for safety. This makes the Colt IAR true " Automatic ".
Our Ultimax fails on being a true " Rifle " and is only good for " Automatic " fire.
...
And there are several other shortcomings for the Ultimax:
I already mentioned single shots from Ultimax being less accurate in comparison to the LWRC IAR.
Secondly, the IAR means near zero re-training or tooling for the USMC to adopt.
Thirdly, the Ultimax construction using stamped sheet metal receiver, the butt, the charging handle all feels extremely flimsy. Overall, it is pretty shoddy compared to a Colt-made IAR in terms of workmanship.
...
Last and most importantly, the magazine:
The Ultimax needs an " adaptor " to take unmodified M16 mags (without the 2 extra holes like the SAF ones).
If the adaptor is lost or broken, you can basically throw the weapon away during battle as the Ultimax will be practically useless. USMC have no intention of drilling 2 holes in all their hundreds of thousands of M16 mags.
And with the adaptor attached, the USMC Ultimax won't be able to use the original Ultimax drum.
So, for 100 rounds the only recourse is the C-Mag. And the problem is that the US military don't have a high opinion of the C-mag for reliability.
...
OK don't kill me - I love the Ultimax, too, in part due to pride that it is made in Singapore. But it did jam horribly on me once during live firing.
So assuming the Ultimax perform well during the tests, the crucial question for USMC could be the adaptor issue.
The Ultimax is famous for controllability and accuracy, so let's hope on this point it is overwhelmingly better than the LWRC IAR.Edited by chino65 05 Jan `08, 10:13PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:This attitude is perhaps why we set up VT Systems, and have an ex USN Admiral as the CEO.
I'm not sure. We're talking about giants such as Colt here. They've got lots of political influence there that VT Systems doesn't. If lobbies such as Colt can thus far prevent a ban on civilian assault rifles, influencing USMC's IAR selection isn't out of its reach as well.
-
-
-
The USMC tender for IAR was announced more than 1 year ago.
Actually if you read the USMC requirement - especially the part about the 100 round mag and being something " off the shelf " instead of development - it sounded like they are asking for the Ultimax as nothing else fit the bill then.
And the Ultimax Mk4 was ready amd waiting.
But IMO the powers-to-be delayed the process and gave time for Colt to develop the Colt IAR. That's why the whole thing has been dragged for donkey years and until now nothing is concrete.
Fu.cking politics.
-
-
-
Well, I think the Ultimax will stilll stand a high chance............
Bcos most squad level automatic weapons for fire support, is either a watered-down MG eg. M249 or souped-up heavy barreled rifle eg. L85, Type95 LMG. The thing is Ultimax falls nicely in between these two category. While the souped up rifle can enjoy commonality of parts with the squad, the ROF is low, the barrel cannot be interchanged, like-wise, the water down MG is less controllable, and more heavy. Although the ultimax Mk4 have some short comings, but it offers some desirable features that may help it outshine the other competitiors.
Controllability: The low recoil of the Ultimax is well known. I remembered firing it without much memories of any significant recoil. The clip showing the Ultimax being fired by the chin is the best evidence of this property. Compare to how the well built host in the discovery channel video shake abt everytime he squeeze trigger. This is important as combat terrains are getting more and more urbanise. The M249 may have a front grip, but due to the recoil, the accuracy is sacrified. The may also be no available wall or flatform for you to deploy the bipod of the weapon. Judging from how the host shakes while firing the colt IAR, I wonder how accurate will the firing be.
Reputation: No doubt, colt may have more money for marketing, more lobby power, but the question is prevalent. The marines tested the Ultimax Mk4 and listed it as the most favourable candidate compared to other guns, so this is going to be more favorable to us as we already made a gd impression into their heads. Besides, the marines are frequently deployed over seas for combat missions, so I doubt they are willing to accept a weapon that they do not favor and press it for comabt, as it is a matter of life and death for them, so choosing one that is favored is the most prob option
-
