# C6 ejection system



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

From what I've read about on the FN MAG, in any of it's incarnations, C6, GPMG, M240, everyone loves them. But one question. Can anyone tell me why FN designed it to eject out the bottom? Even if it was designed from the start as a vehicle weapon, it still doesn't make sense to me. Why didn't FN just go with a side ejecting system?

-2ndChoice

EDIT: Could someone maybe move this to the weapons and ammo forum?


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Jun 2012)

Is there something wrong with ejecting out of the bottom?  Would ejecting out of the side make any kind of real difference?

Personally I don't see what the issue is.  Belt in the left, link out the right, brass out the bottom, bullets out the front... seems legit.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> From what I've read about on the FN MAG, in any of it's incarnations, C6, GPMG, M240, everyone loves them. But one question. Can anyone tell me why FN designed it to eject out the bottom? Even if it was designed from the start as a vehicle weapon, it still doesn't make sense to me. Why didn't FN just go with a side ejecting system?
> 
> -2ndChoice
> 
> EDIT: Could someone maybe move this to the weapons and ammo forum?



Let me see now.   I am not sure what you are really trying to ask.  Are you at all familiar with how the C6 really operates and how it is designed?  I mean, do you really know how the operation of the machinegun works?

The "belted ammo" is fed in from the side.  The belt's "links are stripped" and ejected out the other side of the machinegun as the "rounds (bullets) are picked up" by the bolt and carried downward and forward into the chamber.  As the round is fired, forcing the bolt back, the casing is ejected downward as another round is being pulled from the belt links.  

I have no idea of what you are thinking, if you understand the operation of the machinegun.

As for where the links and casings go when machineguns, and even cannons, are mounted in vehicle turrets, there are chutes and sometimes bags to collect the spent casings and links.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jun 2012)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> Personally I don't see what the issue is.



I don't see the problem either, and i have fired the C6 plenty.

Maybe the OP would like to share with us the experience that has led him to think there is a problem ?


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

I don't mean to say that the C6 is not a good weapon, or that I have any personal experience with them, it just occurred to me that it seemed unorthodox, since most automatic weapons eject out the side. The only problem I could see with the downwards ejection is just that it would be difficult to fire it from the shoulder in a standing position because the natural place for your hand to go is where hot brass is coming out. Again, I don't really see it as an issue, I was just curious as to why it was like that and if it offered any advantages or disadvantages.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Jun 2012)

If I am not mistaken even the .50cal ejects the casings to the bottom.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> I don't mean to say that the C6 is not a good weapon, or that I have any personal experience with them, it just occurred to me that it seemed unorthodox, since most automatic weapons eject out the side. The only problem I could see with the downwards ejection is just that it would be difficult to fire it from the shoulder in a standing position because the natural place for your hand to go is where hot brass is coming out. Again, I don't really see it as an issue, I was just curious as to why it was like that and if it offered any advantages or disadvantages.



If you're strong enough to fire the _26 pound C6 machinegun_ from the standing position you're probably tough enough to shoot it from the standing position one handed, so having your other hand in the way is a moot point. AMIRITE?


----------



## Sythen (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> it would be difficult to fire it from the shoulder in a standing position because the natural place for your hand to go is where hot brass is coming out.



The natural place to hold it when firing from the shoulder (extremely rarely done in any case) is the bipod. Have you ever seen or held a C6 before, because I have no idea why you'd think it would be natural to hold it there?

I do agree with him though that I think it would be better for it to eject from the side, like the C9. Sucks after you've put a few boxes through the C6 having to shove a pile of brass away as its built up too high, and it gets in the way. Not a huge issue, but still inconvenient.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it more, I am way off.. Been forever since I fired a C9, so not even sure if I am right about it coming out the side.. Just ignore me.


----------



## cupper (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> since most automatic weapons eject out the side.



Those with more experience or knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are describing is applicable to a magazine fed weapon, not a belt fed weapon.

For weapons which the ammo is fed from a magazine, only the spent casing needs to be ejected, so typically it is ejected up and out to the side as the bolt moves back, then picks up a new round from mag and pushes it into the chamber and locks into position.

As described previously, with belt fed weapons, you need to deal with both the spent casing and the belt clips.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> or that I have any personal experience with them,





> The only problem I could see with the downwards ejection is just that it would be difficult to fire it from the shoulder in a standing position because the natural place for your hand to go is where hot brass is coming out.



 :

Thanks for coming out.......


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

Yes, I have held a C6, albeit briefly, at a CF exhibit at the Sportsman's show. That's where the idea for this thread started, I picked it up and put my hand on the bottom and the guy there immediately corrected me and told me that that's where the shells came out, and I thought that it was kind of odd. I'm pretty sure weapons like the C9 eject both the links and the shells out the side, but from different "ports". Again, it's not really the ergonomics of the bottom ejecting system that I'm contesting, but just why it was chosen over having it eject sideways. The standing while shooting this was just a little extra thing that I thought of while I was typing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2012)

It was based on a long used and successful John Browning design. It is one of the most widely used machine guns in the world.

John Browing was one of the most prolific firearms designers in the world. He was a master of design and invention.

That's the way it was designed.  You've had the action and reason explained to you a couple of times, by people that have extensive time on the gun.

That's the way it is. Let it go.

Or dig John Browing up and ask him.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> I don't mean to say that the C6 is not a good weapon, or that I have any personal experience with them, it just occurred to me that it seemed unorthodox, since most automatic weapons eject out the side. The only problem I could see with the downwards ejection is just that it would be difficult to fire it from the shoulder in a standing position because the natural place for your hand to go is where hot brass is coming out. Again, I don't really see it as an issue, I was just curious as to why it was like that and if it offered any advantages or disadvantages.



There are some rare individuals - call them vikings, if you will, or arguably warrior poets - who can manhandle a C6 fired from the shoulder. These men lay waste to all before them, and make our foes tremble. You won't read of their deeds, because no journalist has witnessed their prowess and maintained his sanity.

Since these men don't feel pain, it's utterly irrelevant that the hot casings eject downwards onto their hands and wrists- in fact that's part of their hardening process from the earliest years of infancy. They are accustomed to it as you or I will never be.

Us mere mortals, though - namely, almost every soldier I've ever met - recognizes that shooting the C6 from the shoulder is generally to be considered silly and ineffective. Save for those who suffers from fantasies of being beowulf, most just plonk it down on its bipod, tripod, or vehicle mount as it's designed to be used. We, unfortunately, must substitute raw muscular awesomeness with proper employment of the weapon and knowledge in the art of machine-gunnery.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

Okay, I can accept that that is the way it is. I was never arguing that it was a bad system or anything of the sort. It just struck me as odd that it ejects out the bottom, and I thought the people who shoot C6s for a living could maybe tell me why. That's all.


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> Okay, I can accept that that is the way it is. I was never arguing that it was a bad system or anything of the sort. It just struck me as odd that it ejects out the bottom, and I thought the people who shoot C6s for a living could maybe tell me why. That's all.



'Cause that's how the weapon was designed and functioned, and it works very effectively that way.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

All right then.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jun 2012)

Ok, let's talk about why the bullets come out the front.......

 >


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok, let's talk about why the bullets come out the front.......
> 
> >



Because they're insolent.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

I'm more partial to the discussion as to why grenades explode


----------



## medicineman (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> I'm more partial to the discussion as to why grenades explode



They have short fuses.

MM


----------



## GAP (16 Jun 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> They have short fuses.
> 
> MM



Shoot!!  Now they tell me!......I asked and asked and they just looked at me, but here I find out the real reason...... :-[


----------



## PJGary (16 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> EDIT: Actually, thinking about it more, I am way off.. Been forever since I fired a C9, so not even sure if I am right about it coming out the side.. Just ignore me.



Nope, you're right, the spent casings come out the side on the C9. The ejection port is below where the link is pushed out the side of the feed tray. 

Also you can fire the C6 from the standing, from the hip holding the bi-pod as was mentioned. :evil:


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2012)

PJGary said:
			
		

> Nope, you're right, the spent casings come out the side on the C9. The ejection port is below where the link is pushed out the side of the feed tray.
> 
> Also you can fire the C6 from the standing, from the hip holding the bi-pod as was mentioned. :evil:



Before I die, I want to do exactly that, whilst screaming 'KHAAAAAAN!'


----------



## Sythen (16 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Before I die, I want to do exactly that, whilst screaming 'KHAAAAAAN!'



A guy on my Battle School did all rifle PT with the C6.. He was a beast though.. 6'9 or something close and fit as heck. On a fun shoot one time, we were allowed to try shooting from the hip/shoulder.. Hip was fun, but I couldn't hit anything.. I got one burst off from shoulder and my weakness kicked in!


----------



## NavyShooter (16 Jun 2012)

Let me post a link for you....it will bring you to an electronic copy of the Machine Gun Bible...  to be precise:

The Machine Gun (by George M. Chinn)
 The Machine Gun. History, Evolution, and Development of Manual, Automatic, and Airborne Repeating Weapons
 Bureau of Ordnance Department of the Navy, Washington, 1951 (Vol. I-V)

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-(by-George-M.-Chinn)

There are a number of reasons that many (not all, but many) machineguns spit their empties out the bottom.

First and foremost among them is gravity.  Using gravity to help expel the spent casing from the weapon is a good thing.  Most weapons do not rely solely on gravity, but using gravity to help is a "good thing."

John Moses Browning is a genius.  Having assembled my own 1919A4 BMG (semi-auto) with my 2 hands (and a mill, vise, BFH, etc) I can appreciate that more than most.

I would challenge you to have a read of the books above...Volume 4 deals with a lot of the mechanics and design aspects.  

Chapter 21 of volume 5 on page 247 deals with the FN MAG 58 LMG (our C-6)

Chapter 42 of volume 5 on page 367 deals with the FN Minimi (C-9)


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

Thanks, I will make an earnest effort to read this.


----------



## NavyShooter (16 Jun 2012)

2nd choice...

Unless you have a mechanical background or experience with machine guns already, much of what's in there will be lost on you.

Just so you know.

NS


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

That's how I like to do it, I read things that are way over my head, and when I don't understand something, I look it up and keep going. (I'm not sure if that came across as sarcastic, but I don't mean it that way.)


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

I just read both chapters on the MAG and MINIMI, and I can happily say that I both understood everything in there, and that it also offered an explanation to the downwards ejecting thing. One thing though, it says the acronym for MAG is Mitrailleuse a Gaz. Isn't the acronym Mitrailleuse d'Appui Generale?


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> Mitrailleuse a Gaz.



....is accurate.


----------



## BDTyre (16 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> A guy on my Battle School did all rifle PT with the C6.. He was a beast though.. 6'9 or something close and fit as heck. On a fun shoot one time, we were allowed to try shooting from the hip/shoulder.. Hip was fun, but I couldn't hit anything.. I got one burst off from shoulder and my weakness kicked in!



There is this classic video of the SAS/SBS at Qala-i-Jangi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amV0kMEKXU4. Firing from the shoulder, one handed while holding the box of rounds in his left hand.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

I stand corrected. I guess you can shoot it from the shoulder, you just have to be the manliest man in the world. On an unrelated note, is the amount of GPMGs see in that video standard for a British SF unit?


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2012)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. I guess you can shoot it from the shoulder, you just have to be the manliest man in the world. On an unrelated note, is the amount of GPMGs see in that video standard for a British SF unit?



Anyone who knows won't be answering the question.

In this case it's been publicized a fair bit through official sources. The SBS troops present dismounted the GPMGs from their land rovers and engaged with them.


----------



## Sythen (16 Jun 2012)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> There is this classic video of the SAS/SBS at Qala-i-Jangi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amV0kMEKXU4. Firing from the shoulder, one handed while holding the box of rounds in his left hand.



Man, that guy isn't even really that big either.. Just super fit I guess lol


----------



## brihard (16 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Man, that guy isn't even really that big either.. Just super fit I guess lol



The Vikings invaded Britain several times. Left a good bit of their genetic legacy.  ;D


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (16 Jun 2012)

I see. I was gonna say, I'd hate to be in that unit if we were carrying the ammo for what looked like 2-3 GPMGs. There couldn't be more than a dozen SBS guys there.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jun 2012)

Welcome to the real world.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (17 Jun 2012)

haha, yeah, I can probably think of a couple of other reasons why I'd hate to be in that unit!


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2012)

On the totally off topic issue of the subject at hand, there is one exception in automatic weapons that I can think of, being the 30mm RARDEN cannon, which has an insanely complex mechanism which allows use in a very compact turret (takes up less space) and also ejects the spent casings to the front so they fall (via a chute) outside the turret.

Necessity being the mother of invention was one parent of the development of the RARDEN (The initial driver was the need to arm very small vehicles with large and powerful weapons to deal with the Soviet threat), and British interest in Baroque engineering was the other parent, explaining the way it was actually designed and built. Even so, it has been a reliable and relatively popular weapon, serving for decades in many different British AFV's. It is set to be replaced by the 40mm CTA cannon, which uses an entirely different principle of operation and an unusual type of round.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (1 Aug 2012)

Back to the rounds from the C6 ejecting downwards instead of sideways is a great idea. Makes it much better for us lefty shooters, still dealing with small burns from using the C9  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> On the totally off topic issue of the subject at hand, there is one exception in automatic weapons that I can think of, being the 30mm RARDEN cannon, which has an insanely complex mechanism which allows use in a very compact turret (takes up less space) and also ejects the spent casings to the front so they fall (via a chute) outside the turret.
> 
> Necessity being the mother of invention was one parent of the development of the RARDEN (The initial driver was the need to arm very small vehicles with large and powerful weapons to deal with the Soviet threat), and British interest in Baroque engineering was the other parent, explaining the way it was actually designed and built. Even so, it has been a reliable and relatively popular weapon, serving for decades in many different British AFV's. It is set to be replaced by the 40mm CTA cannon, which uses an entirely different principle of operation and an unusual type of round.



As I recall, it used to have a three round box magazine, but that may have been changed later.


----------



## NavyShooter (1 Aug 2012)

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm

An interesting website....some good reading there.

NS


----------



## AmmoTech90 (2 Aug 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall, it used to have a three round box magazine, but that may have been changed later.



It has 3 round clipped ammunition, each clip fed manually into the weapon.  Not the most efficient or beloved of systems, but quite accurate and powerful.  The 7.62mm chain gun that was mated to it in the Warrior's turret was another odd weapon, only odd to the point of being dangerous with regard to the number of stoppages and breakdowns.


----------



## KevinB (4 Aug 2012)

Somewhere around my photo collection I have pics of MJP and I shooting C-6's from the shoulder - and the hip and a number of other positions. All I have on the computer that I can find is us doing a 'Afghani drive by' in an Iltis with a C-6 from the utterly unsuported position  ;D


----------



## PJGary (7 Aug 2012)

Any time I have been on OPFOR we have figured out some pretty creative C6 drills, like MILCOTS tailgunner... Miiiiight have gotten in s**t for that  .


----------

