Full Version: Needs More Belt Feed
if you've ever read Wetworks--the first 11 issues, all else is heresy--they basically use this concept for every weapon, ever. i've always thought it'd be pretty badass to use in SR.
Yay for spray and pray!
Without any pictures of it firing or ejecting a link, though, I'm leaning towards "standard M1911 with a belt stuck up the handle".
Without any pictures of it firing or ejecting a link, though, I'm leaning towards "standard M1911 with a belt stuck up the handle".
While I do believe that all those pictures are just fake, a conversion kit turning M16-style rifles into belt-fed MGs actually exists! And it's even by Ares!!
One more vote for the "fake" side here... It takes a lot more mechanically to feed a belt than you could feasibly fit inside a 1911 - never mind a mechanism robust enought to pull a belt hanging veritcally without jamming.
Although the pics are sort of neat.
Although the pics are sort of neat.
| QUOTE (mmu1) |
| It takes a lot more mechanically to feed a belt than you could feasibly fit inside a 1911 - never mind a mechanism robust enought to pull a belt hanging veritcally without jamming. |
I agree, but I did note that the belts all seem relatively short- I'm guessing to keep the weight down. With the right recoil spring the 1911 might work, but my guess is you'd have misfires left and right, since your slide return would be even faster and the ammo feed slower...
What would happen to the belt links? Wouldn't it be a major modification to the 1911 to accomodate their ejection?
Just what I was thinking. A pistol's action is way to fast to accomodate it chambering a round and ejecting the links. I think I smell a fake here, but still looks tres cool.
I like the pic of the fat cop with his finger inside the trigger guard. Thats like the first thing they teach you not to do (who's they? I don't know... thats the second thing they teach you...)
Anyway, now that you mention it, the links would seem to be a problem. Its hard to tell how the links are made from the photos, but I can't think of any way the breach would close with those things attached to the brass...
Anyway, now that you mention it, the links would seem to be a problem. Its hard to tell how the links are made from the photos, but I can't think of any way the breach would close with those things attached to the brass...
"they", in this case, are every single gun safetly class, ever. he is, indeed, being a retard.
Maybe he's actually intending to shoot the wall behind his desk?
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Method @ Feb 16 2005, 02:10 PM) |
| I like the pic of the fat cop with his finger inside the trigger guard. Thats like the first thing they teach you not to do (who's they? I don't know... thats the second thing they teach you...) |
Ronin is one of the best SR movies ever. It's even qouted on the back of Shadows of North America.
Clearly a fake. "Overseas problems" indeed
...what the fuck is a shottist?
Someone who makes or is otherwise connected with shot?
~J
~J
Why don't you go to www.shottist.com for the definition on the front page?
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Why don't you go to www.shottist.com for the definition on the front page? |
? Isn't that shootist? Like the John Wayne movie?
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| ...what the fuck is a shottist? |
Isn't it a 80 Ton Inner Sphere Mech?
| QUOTE (Shockwave_IIc) | ||
Isn't it a 80 Ton Inner Sphere Mech? |
damn, you beat me to it.
My gun bunny friend/player just pointed out that the ammo belt on the M-16 / AR-15 is going IN THE EJECTION PORT.... 
I personally am ashamed that noone on DS caught this, and feel down right stupid myself...
I personally am ashamed that noone on DS caught this, and feel down right stupid myself...
Wait, I've got it - "o" and "i" are next to each other on the keyboard. It's a typo is all
Yeah. Fake as a rubber dog turd (but funny).
| QUOTE (DrJest) | ||
? Isn't that shootist? Like the John Wayne movie? |
| QUOTE (Jeff Cooper @ http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/jeff/jeff4_5.html) |
| I have been somewhat amused at the spate of indignation I have aroused by insisting that the proper word is "shottist" rather than "shootist". Several people have leafed through a series of dictionaries to tell me that I am wrong about this. Apparently it is a matter of English-English versus American-English. I have been presented on two occasions to audiences in Great Britain and in South Africa as a shottist, and I assume that a proper English language dictionary would support me in this. Our British cousins spell color with a "u" and refer to a fender as a wing. Other examples will occur to you. Personally I prefer shottist, but it appears that I cannot insist upon that. |
| QUOTE (Dictionary.com) |
| No entry found for shottist. Did you mean shootist? |
| QUOTE (Dictionary.com) |
| 1 entry found for shootist. Main Entry: shootist Part of Speech: noun Definition: a marksperson or gunfighter; a person who shoots a weapon |
I realize this has nothing to do with SR, admins please be gentle. This thread will die out soon anyway unless someone redirects it to something interesting and pertinent, so no need to lock it.
None of the large dictionaries I can access recognize the word "shottist" -- this includes Merriam-Webster and other Webster-style dictionaries. A thorough corpus examination (ie. I Google'd it) revealed that the word is not actually used anywhere except by Jeff Cooper, the Shottist.Com site, and people referring to these two. The one and only dictionary/encyclopedia type site that recognizes the word is the MSN Encarta, which states that 'shottist' originated in South Africa in the mid-20th century as "a blend of 'shootist' and 'shot'" and describes someone who is "a good shot with a gun, often a participant in shooting contests".
None of the large dictionaries I can access recognize the word "shottist" -- this includes Merriam-Webster and other Webster-style dictionaries. A thorough corpus examination (ie. I Google'd it) revealed that the word is not actually used anywhere except by Jeff Cooper, the Shottist.Com site, and people referring to these two. The one and only dictionary/encyclopedia type site that recognizes the word is the MSN Encarta, which states that 'shottist' originated in South Africa in the mid-20th century as "a blend of 'shootist' and 'shot'" and describes someone who is "a good shot with a gun, often a participant in shooting contests".
Yeah, but you can't trust MSN!! That'd be like putting stock into Fuchi.
Fuchi was a great buy until the Big D died. Or rather, until his will was read.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Method @ Feb 16 2005, 07:00 PM) |
| My gun bunny friend/player just pointed out that the ammo belt on the M-16 / AR-15 is going IN THE EJECTION PORT.... I personally am ashamed that noone on DS caught this, and feel down right stupid myself... |
that's different. the Shrike, from what it looks like, is basically a SAW on an M16 lower reciever--the upper receiver has been completely redesigned. in the SHOTTIST pic, it's pretty clearly an unaltered upper reciever. maybe i'm wrong, maybe they ripped the guts out of that upper reciever and completely redid its inner workings--but if they did, they'd almost certainly have had to put an ejection port on the opposite side of the weapon. that's not an easy task; why wouldn't they have shown a pic of that part?
Not necessarily. When you feed through the ejection port, the magwell is essentially vestigial at that point. Can just eject through that, which is really what I would have done with the Shrike if it weren't in use for the ammo can.
That's not to say the Shottist bit isn't just bullshitting everyone for fun; just that I found that particular design to be the most believable.
That's not to say the Shottist bit isn't just bullshitting everyone for fun; just that I found that particular design to be the most believable.
i dunno. that would require several ounces of Crazyanium-420 to make work. you'd have to... reverse the entire loading and ejection process, i guess. or something.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) | ||
|
In the pics of the striker the ammo is being fed into a modified reciever. The ejection port is on the oposite side of the rifle. The ejection port has to be on that side so brass isn't ejected into the LOS of a right-handed shooter. The rounds are entering on the left.
You can see on the before and after shot that the side where the rounds enter on a striker has no opening on the unmodified M4 rifle.
And as mfb has said, the shottist pics are pretty strait forward. Its a belt stuck into the ejection port.
And really why would anyone bother with the insane modifications required to make the ejection port the reciever when the striker exists?
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i dunno. that would require several ounces of Crazyanium-420 to make work. you'd have to... reverse the entire loading and ejection process, i guess. or something. |
my guess would be Unbelievium-232...
The Shrike is obviously modified, but with a lot of clever gunsmithing ingenuity, it's not inconceivable that you could leave it visually the same and modify to feed through the ejection port and eject out the magwell.
Practical? Not particularly, but that's not really the point. Is that what Shottist did? No, they're taking you all for a ride. But it isn't impossible.
Also, it's Shrike, not Striker. The Striker is a completely different gun.
Practical? Not particularly, but that's not really the point. Is that what Shottist did? No, they're taking you all for a ride. But it isn't impossible.
Also, it's Shrike, not Striker. The Striker is a completely different gun.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| that's different. the Shrike, from what it looks like, is basically a SAW on an M16 lower reciever--the upper receiver has been completely redesigned. in the SHOTTIST pic, it's pretty clearly an unaltered upper reciever. maybe i'm wrong, maybe they ripped the guts out of that upper reciever and completely redid its inner workings--but if they did, they'd almost certainly have had to put an ejection port on the opposite side of the weapon. that's not an easy task; why wouldn't they have shown a pic of that part? |
Because it's bullshit.
1) The picture shows a 7.62x51mm belt sticking out of an semi-automatic AR-15 (5.56x45mm) action. A few questions arise there, the least of which being A) why the loaded cartridges barely fit through the ejection port, and B) why would you belt-feed a semi-auto?
2) Besides having to feed through the ejection port and eject through the mag well (which would most definitely require some re-working of action), there's nothing around the ejection port to actually guide the cartridges into that port. If it were real (and there ain't no way), not only would the cartridges get hung up on that port and jam like a mofo, the belt would bang the living hell out of that aluminum receiver in no time.
3) Unlike the Shrike, there's nothing to actually pull the belt through the action, not enough space to allow the cartridges to feed into the ejection port, and not enough space to allow links to reliably eject clear of the cartridge cases (through the mag well).
4) The last bit is heat. A plain old AR-10 action would not handle that kind of volume of fire without a removable barrel system. The gun in the pic doesn't have one.
It may look like the most believable of the bunch, but it's no more believable than anything else on that page to me. I mean, come on. A Belt-fed bolt-action? Ha-ha?
It's pretty unbelievable to me that one would opt to feed through the ejection port and eject thought the mag well to belt-feed and AR-10. It's silly.
Indeed. Especially when the Ar series can mount a dual 50-round drum clip assembly, the point of needing belted ammo is a bit stupid. As we all know, belted ammo is best for a machine-gun with a high rate of fire, that is going to burn through hundreds of rounds relatively fast. As an AR-5 or most other assault rifles are most commonly employed in a single-shot or 3 round burst mode, a belted ammunition system is unnecessary, not to mention taking away one of the assault rifles advantages, which allows a soldier good mobility in addition to being able to lay down a reasoable volume of fire.
| QUOTE (The Grifter) |
| Indeed. Especially when the Ar series can mount a dual 50-round drum clip assembly, the point of needing belted ammo is a bit stupid. |
Actually, Beta makes a 100-round dual drum. Even that is pushing it a bit for an assault rifle platform. Like you said, assault rifles are designed to be lightweight, not to sustain fire or be used in place of a machine gun.
Exactly. That sort of defeats the machine-gun and the assault rifle's purpose, so you get stuck with an unwieldy amalgam of both. Pretty cool to see that 100 round drum clip though.
Hey Raygun, any idea what a fully loaded Beta-C would weigh?
Well, an M16A2 weighs in an around 7 pounds. The drumclip weighs in at 3.25, factor in ammunition, I'd say a good 12-13 pounds maybe? Keep in mind I'm guesstimating here.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Very different. ~J |
When you absolutely positively have to kill every motherfragger within a half a mile radius...
| QUOTE (TheOneRonin) |
| Hey Raygun, any idea what a fully loaded Beta-C would weigh? |
Right around six pounds.
The magazine weighs 3.32 lbs according to the site. COTW lists the US M855 cartridge weight a 187 grains x 100 = 18700 / 7000 = 2.67 lbs + 3.32 = 5.99 lbs. Depending on the ammunition used, it could be a little more or less. With M995 AP comes to 5.84 lbs, with Mk262 comes to 6.17 lbs.
Ah, I was factoring in the weight of the weapon itself too.
| QUOTE (Arethusa @ Feb 17 2005, 12:34 PM) |
| The Shrike is obviously modified, but with a lot of clever gunsmithing ingenuity, it's not inconceivable that you could leave it visually the same and modify to feed through the ejection port and eject out the magwell. Practical? Not particularly, but that's not really the point. Is that what Shottist did? No, they're taking you all for a ride. But it isn't impossible. Also, it's Shrike, not Striker. The Striker is a completely different gun. |
Arggg damn may crappy speed reading skills....
<-- this is me being blind!!Shrike it is!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.