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!
