Talk:Ultimax 100

Questions

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)

The "problem" with regard to 30-round box magazines is fairly insignificant. The fact that special-ops versions of the Minimi have the ability to use STANAG mags deleted shows that it's not a feature that's considered very important. After all, a light machine gun with a low-capacity magazine isn't particularly useful. Using a SAW with 30-round magazines gives you basically a heavier M16. I would expect the same to be true of an Ultimax with 30-rounders. 71.203.209.0 06:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Where did the gallery at the bottom of this article go? is there a reason why it was removed? --Climax Void ☭. —Preceding comment was added at 19:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well because I used one of the images to replace the other image with the green background in the infobox, which was about to be deleted for copyvio and the remaining image was a tiny low-res blurb. Koalorka (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Youtube video

I'm all for a good video if it adds to the article. I haven't personally seen your video. I undid your revert twice for the reasons stated. First, to add to the article, it needs to be accurate. Second, it needs to conform to community standards. The first editor that reverted your addition did so with good reason, he thought it was poor quality and didn't reflect the community standards. Your only defense was to lash out against the person whom you disagreed with telling him that he didn't OWN the article. Well, you don't either. I'm not arguing either way as, again, I have not watched the video yet. My point is that it's contested and, therefore, should be discussed here on the talk page until such time as a concensus is reached. Talk away. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In the words of a Latin proverb: "Actions not word." Go watch the video clip first before deciding I was wrong. I've seen the Ultimax 100 being fired countless times, but none was recorded on film. Here comes an amateur video (hence no copyvio issue!) which shows exactly what it is like firing the weapon with a C-Mag, a 30 round magazine and one hand shooting. I think that just about solves all doubts and questions, eh? Another thing, read WP:DTTR, it is offensive and impolite! ...Dave1185 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I can't as the firewall here blocks it. Second, I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking you to engage in a dialogue prior to petty edit warring. The content was disputed... even you're not disputing that. You're merely attacking me and Kaolarka (sp). Now then, if you're so into quoting all of these Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, then why don't you do yourself a favor and read through WP:consensus? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yawns! Watch it first, will you? I got all day to wait for your consensus, how long do you require? 24hours? 48hours? A week? A year? Hell, I'll wait and I stand to be corrected. In the meantime, I will be editing other pages so it's really no big deal, y'know? ...Dave1185 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to say, your flippant, condescending tone isn't winning you any points. Yawning and talking down to long-time editors of this article gives you no pull over the community opinion. Now, if I watch it and still agree that it doesn't need to be there, I'm not pulling any punches. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You talked the talk but have you walked the walk? Like I've said, I can wait (Wikipedia:There is no deadline). Cheers~! ..Dave1185 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, who are you? You're acting like a teenager. What does this mean, "You talked the talk but have you walked the walk?" This ain't no schoolyard and you ain't no prom queen. I told you, I didn't and can't watch the video right now. Please refrain from your combative, know-it-all attitude. Since you're walking this walk and have no trouble throwing accusations around, I have no problem telling you that you're being a dick about this for no reason. You're trying to beat up people for arguing with you when there's no argument. I'm just trying to get you to the table. Chill out. Let the coolness flow through you. Take your medication. What ever it is that is causing this inbalance of yin and yang, get over it. See, even DanMP5 (a cool guy himself) tacitly agrees with you. I might also. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, WHO ARE YOU? You are also acting like a teenager! Think about it, it takes two to edit-war. Let's face it, we are both at fault for this spiraling dialog between us, like it or not... so IF you'd be polite and I'll be polite too! ...Dave1185 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nukes has been engaging in thoughtful discussion while you make comments like these[1] that don't even make sense, attack other editors because they make a valid point[2], and generally being a dick about the whole thing. This is just a discussion about a simple link to a video, you don't have to start attacking other editors for no reason. Also, you have been escalating this discussion, not nukes. — DanMP5 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I'm waiting for the "nya-nya-nya" and raspberries. Please, attack the argument if you think it's unfair, but stop your personal attacks. As a 'regular', you should definitely know better. Address what I say, not how you feel about whoever you think I am. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to completely clarify things, your last comment was directed at Dave, right? — DanMP5 02:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes... but I can see where it was unclear. Sorry. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see anything wrong with the video (although I only watched half of it, dial-up), it's not high quality but most you tube videos aren't. — DanMP5 16:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for the video itself, it is a homemade film, I reverted for the "clip" (cringes) and the dedicated but unwarranted header. Koalorka (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I see you like the term "clip" about as much as I do. I don't really know what the standard for inclusion is for videos, as I can't watch the ones on articles like MP5 or Glock pistol because of my internet connection. — DanMP5 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I viewed the clip. Ha, get it? The film clip? See, I was making a pun as the word clip here has a double meaning as both a snippet of video and as a magazine in ignorant-speak. I made a funny. Get it? Hahaha! Okay. Wiping the tears from my eyes for a minute... I don't see any problem with the YouTube video. I've seen that before and actually have it downloaded somewhere. Was also more worried that the ignorant term "clip" wasn't being used to describe what is obvioiusly a magazine. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark 5 variant?

Does anyone have information on the new Mark 5 version for the USMC? I have encountered rumors that General Dynamics is now involved in at least the marketing of this new version to the Marines, could not verify licensing status or level of American development work. Koalorka (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A link to the specs of the Mk 5. www.stengg.com/upload/921FaRTTolOeehfMOcU.pdf Really not sure if it's a step forward or back. Was there any point in a 1/3-shot control module, especially since the ROF of the weapon's low enough to control rounds fired simply by how long you hold down the trigger? Tap for 1 shot, hold for auto, can't get simpler than that. And opinion wise, I think a bipod/grip combo's still better than the monopod for stability, arguments that snipers can target SAW/IAR weapons gunners being simply theory, I think professional snipers are still taught to go for the leaders 1st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.187 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Mark 5 displaced the Mark 4 as an IAR candidate. There are pictures online of it taken at General Dynamics' display at the 2008 Association of the US Army (AUSA) annual meeting. General Dynamics, FN, and LWRC were originally selected to provide IAR prototypes back in June 2006.[3] The competition was opened back up in November 2007 to allow Colt, FN, General Dynamics, HK, KAC, and LWRC to resubmit.[4] You will note that STK was not a candidate on their own, and the original folks who cobbled together the Mk 4 definitely didn't have the prestige of General Dynamics. --D.E. Watters (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

US Navy SEALS connection

As I understand it, the SEALs had tested this weapon at one stage, having bought 20 of them for trials back in the late 1980s. I have a quote from an un-named SEAL team commander as stated in the Jane's IDR test report of 1989, emphasising the need of having an accurate light machine gun: "Men react one of two ways when shot at. If you shoot at them, they take cover and return fire; but if they start hitting them, they withdraw.". Trouble is... where do I slot this in? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading my copy of "Weapons of the Navy SEALs" it seems that the reason it wasn't adopted in 1989 is that in testing it had an unacceptable number of stoppages and 25% of those stopages wer from the magazine just falling out of the weapon. So while they are lightweight and accurate at the time they just were not reliable enough for combat.Paulwharton (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1981, not 1989. That weapon tested then was a prototype, actual production model came out only in 1982. Most likely a wild gamble sales attempt. Edited out the part on 30-round mag drops, the drops were from the 100 rounders. The 30-rounder mag holes distend, which can cause feed problems, but they don't drop. And the holes are not on the feed lip, but lower. The holes in the 30 rounders were not an afterthought or an adaptation, there is a newspaper article dated 1982 (Ultimax in production year) that stated that the SAW can use 30 rounders, which proves that it was part of the design plan, though I'd admit it lacks style. Edited out the "finally" in the "adapted to take STANAG 30 rounders" part, with it, it sounded like an opinion piece. Without it, it sounds more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.147.67 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Video

This site:[Ultimax 100] has avideo with this weapon shooting.Agre22 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spider_light_strike/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)