What makes pic related so good that it's same basic design

Simplicity.

>>32667170
It works and there isn't anything that does the same stuff significantly better than it.

It's a mounted gun so there's not nearly as much incentive to reduce weight as handheld weapon. And there's no desire to lighten the cartridge, it's supposed to be big, so it's unlikely there ever will be incentive to replace it unless some really magic stuff comes along

>>32667170
Put your damn chin strap on. Nigger you ain't John Wayne.

>>32667170
The design is outdated but it'd cost more money than it's worth to replace it.

>>32667173
No.

>>32667170
>What makes pic related so good that it's same basic design is still serviceable almost 100 years later?
it throws a lot of big bullets far and fast, doesn't break (that much) and we have like a million of them
what more would you want a HMG to do?
>>32667228
>Put your damn chin strap on. Nigger you ain't John Wayne.
at least he didn't lose a fucking truck

Nothing has come along that is good enough to warrant the cost of replacing it.

File: image.jpg (142KB, 600x534px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x534px

I'm just getting into gun mechanics, say you take a Barret 82 and convert it to chain feed, beef up the barrel/ make a quick remove barrel, and mount it and convert to fire full auto... would it just shoot itself apart? Is the design just too weak to handle large amounts of full auto fire?

>>32667580
Yes, basically.

>>32667170
everything everyone said except that the bigger the project the larger the tolerances. you don't measure in thousandths when you frame a house.

big bullet -> big cartridge -> big action -> big, forgiving tolerances -> easier time handling dust and dirt of a typically limited particulate size

>>32667170
You tell me. What do you think is going on inside a gun that's so complicated? It's just a loading mechanism and firing mechanism.

Nothing. It's an overweight, unreliable and obsolete design produced in such ungodly amount the military just can't get rid of it.

>>32667170
I don't think you realize how many modifications FN has made to them.

File: m4.jpg (67KB, 1170x527px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1170x527px

>>32668254
Exactly. The fundamental principles are the same but the material and manufacturing are vastly different.

The only thing that remains from the original is the basic firing mechanism.

Pic related. Compare an original Carl Gustaf from 1948 with a modern one.