Talk:Ultimax 100
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
The statement ""the low weight gives the weapon a low recoil"" is wrong: other things being equal, the lighter a weapon is, the higher the recoil will be. Imagine it being accelerated backwards by the forces of the projectile and muzzle blast.
The low recoil of the Ultimax is due to its design - here is a quote from Max Popenker's Moder Firearms site: ""The overall action design allows the bolt carrier/bolt group to travel all the way back without being stuck into the rear of the receiver. This feature helps to reduce felt recoil and to improve accuracy.""
- so fix the article. the sentence on its face is incorrect and i will remove it entirely if you do not correct it. Avriette 04:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Is the Ultimax 100 sight really that difficult to use? In my experience, the iron sights provided are no more difficult to use than that of the M-16; they are after all similar. --Rifleman 82 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. The reference was probably in comparison with reflex sights, and not other iron sights. It might be because of the butt, which has a strange bulge towards the point where the buttpiece was slotted into the body of the weapon.
It should be added that in practice, the so-called Ultimax 30-round magazines, are not optimal, as, due to the design for the drum-magazine, the drilled holes were almost on the lip of the magazines. In comparison with designs - such as the FN Minimi - that did not require any modifications to be made to the magazine or the gun, this is an anachronism in design that was not addressed for over twenty years (and only addressed recently in the Mk 4 version).
Another poor design element was the cocking piece sliding to the left of the body - many an imprudent recruit had their palms cut when they failed to push the cocking piece forward after cocking the weapon. A covered cocking piece, or one spring-loaded to return automatically to the front, would have been superior.
The 100-round drums designed for the Ultimax 100 - rarely seen or used by ordinary servicemen in the Singapore Armed Forces - are heavy, and their round shapes made them less efficient to transport or carry. The FN Minimi boxes - particularly the third-party soft casing carriers - for the ammunition belts is a superior high-capacity weapon feed system.
All-in-all, I can't say I'm surprised that the FN Minimi was chosen by the US Marines instead.
(Philip Sim)
