# Swedish "Para" MAG



## baboon6 (26 May 2005)

I hadn't seen this before, a C6/MAG58 with a short barrel and folding stock. Comments?

www.bellum.nu/armoury/Ksp58DF.html


----------



## TCBF (27 May 2005)

Nice Chopper.


----------



## paracowboy (27 May 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> Comments?


I want one.


----------



## spacelord (27 May 2005)

that is teh r0xx0rz!!!!!!!11


----------



## 1feral1 (27 May 2005)

Interesting.

Wes


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 May 2005)

Wow never seen a picture of a baby C6.


----------



## NATO Boy (27 May 2005)

If Mini-Me was put in Weapons Det... ;D


----------



## KevinB (28 May 2005)

Just wish it had a better stock - the Para stock sucks ass.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 May 2005)

Presumably they will also have to issue some kind of machine gun optical sight with it?


----------



## paracowboy (28 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Presumably they will also have to issue some kind of machine gun optical sight with it?


gads, I hope not! (You were being facetious, weren't you?)


----------



## Britney Spears (28 May 2005)

Huh? What would you aim the silly thing with, seeing as how it has no iron sights or front sight post and the Aimpoint is not adjustable for range, and presumably the red dot would be pretty big for a target at 500m (assuming it hasn't gotten a ranging reticle or some such)? Or am I missing something?  ???


----------



## TCBF (28 May 2005)

Well now, obviously, the Sustained Fire Kit will make up for all of that.   ;D

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (28 May 2005)

> Well now, obviously, the Sustained Fire Kit will make up for all of that.   Grin



That would make sense, would they be getting Elcans then?


----------



## paracowboy (28 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Huh? What would you aim the silly thing with, seeing as how it has no iron sights or front sight post and the Aimpoint is not adjustable for range, and presumably the red dot would be pretty big for a target at 500m (assuming it hasn't gotten a ranging reticle or some such)? Or am I missing something?   ???


well, seeing as it's an area weapon, I'd take the Aimpoint off, put some iron sights on it and proceed to enjoy myself thoroughly. I hate the entire concept of opticals on machine guns. For that matter, I don't like opticals on any firearm except in the defensive, or for specific roles. I take that POS M79 off my rifle at every opportunity and put iron sights on it. 

That being said, I *am* a huge fan of the EOTech Holosight. Although, I wouldn't put it on a machine gun.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 May 2005)

Actually upon closer inspection, it does have fold down front sights, so I suppose you could still attach iron sights. Sounds like it would be a PITA to get set up properly though.




> I hate the entire concept of opticals on machine guns. For that matter, I don't like opticals on any firearm except in the defensive, or for specific roles. I take that POS M79 off my rifle at every opportunity and put iron sights on it.
> 
> That being said, I am a huge fan of the EOTech Holosight. Although, I wouldn't put it on a machine gun.



Word is the guys in the hills that night at the Medak Pocket were quite happy they had the C79s, since they didn't all have NVGs.

I'm not a huge gun nut or anything, so take this with a grain of salt. The Dutch also use Elcans on their C-8s (but not C-7s, go figure) and the big Elcan MGO on their Minimis. However, most of the time, the sight stays in the case as part of the EIS/SF kit, and it only goes on the gun on command. This eliminates the whole "half our sights are fucked when we get to the trg area  because they were banging around the back of a truck for 5 hours" problem, and if you put the sight back in the same spot on the rail, it should still be zeroed (that's what the pam says right?). Seems like a reasonable idea to me.


----------



## TCBF (28 May 2005)

You are correct.  Same idea with the Carl Gustav, right?

Tom


----------



## paracowboy (28 May 2005)

> Actually upon closer inspection, it does have fold down front sights, so I suppose you could still attach iron sights. Sounds like it would be a PITA to get set up properly though.


nah, not really. And more than worth it to have a weapon system as effective as the MAG functioning properly. I love machine guns (just an aside)


> Word is the guys in the hills that night at the Medak Pocket were quite happy they had the C79s, since they didn't all have NVGs.


Yeah, it does come in handy at night, but I still prefer a peep sight, even then. An even better option is the monocular NVG with PEQ-4 laser. Or the *EOTech Holosight * (have I mentioned that I'm really quite fond of that thingie?) I can ask my WO, and get back to you, if you like. He was there. I haven't ever bothered him about that tour, though. And especially not that night.


> The Dutch also use Elcans on their C-8s (but not C-7s, go figure) and the big Elcan MGO on their Minimis.


 The Dutch can do whatever they like. But, we shouldn't copy their mistakes.    (We should do more exchanges with them, though, beecause they have the hottest women in NATO)



> However, most of the time, the sight stays in the case as part of the EIS/SF kit, and it only goes on the gun on command. This eliminates the whole "half our sights are fucked when we get to the trg area  because they were banging around the back of a truck for 5 hours" problem, and if you put the sight back in the same spot on the rail, it should still be zeroed (that's what the pam says right?). Seems like a reasonable idea to me.


 That's the theory, anyway. It's worked for me, because my C79 rides in my patrol pack until such time as I choose to mount it on my weapon. Which is seldom.

You know, it occurs to me, maybe we shold get something else. Hey, howzabout the *EOTech Holosight*? Anyway, back to the machine gun in question. I still want one.


----------



## pappy (2 Jul 2005)

does it come with sunglasses to lessen the muzzle flash?  man That baby must spit flames at the 1100/rds per min gas setting.... :dontpanic: :gunner:

Only thing better then a belt-fed machine gun is high explosives....

No problem is too big to be solved by the proper use of High Explosives..... hehehe

Please, hands off the clacker till I get back ;D


----------



## Yeoman (3 Jul 2005)

I asked a guy that's in the national guard for sweden (I forget what they call it though, but it's basically that) and he said that it's a very great machine gun to carry around. much lighter then the regular gpmg version (obviously).
Greg


----------



## Gunnerlove (9 Jul 2005)

If you were to read the book "On killing" you might have a better grasp of why the army is trying it stick optics on every small arm.


----------



## Fusaki (9 Jul 2005)

> If you were to read the book "On killing" you might have a better grasp of why the army is trying it stick optics on every small arm.



Are you referring to the part describing how killing is supposed to be easier on the mind when looking through a scope?

Its been awhile, but IIRC the theory was that the significant differences between naked eye vision and vision through a combat optic (magnification and crosshairs) can help to mentally separate the act of killing someone from your day to day life after the fact. The idea is that when killing with the help of an optical sight, you get into a videogame mentality. Then when you stop shooting and lower your weapon to further scan your arcs, your naked eye views the body on the ground as a distant object and your mind would not associate it with the point where your vision and hands co-ordinated the act of pulling the trigger. In theory, this would help the soldier to spend less time dwelling on the horror of combat and maintain his psychological health for an extended campaign and into retirement.

But in regards to the above post, you cannot sacrifice short term effectiveness in a firefight for the long term mental health of your troops. I'm not saying that causes of PTSD should be neglected by our commanders, but there needs to be a priority of things. And priority goes to winning the firefight. As well, the trend these days is to issue small arms most effective at shorter to medium ranges. If a soldier has to kill someone only 50m away, it doesn't matter whether you are using an optic or not. Even if the magnification on your scope distorts your vision, at that close range the killing is still up close and personal as soon as you lower your weapon.

Like I said, its been awhile since I've read On Killing so let me know if I'm on the mark or out to lunch on this one.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jul 2005)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> If you were to read the book "On killing" you might have a better grasp of why the army is trying it stick optics on every small arm.



 :

Please.  I can tell your not a machine gunner.  Read On Combat, use a MG operationally and come back and talk to us.


----------



## axeman (9 Jul 2005)

L col Nette wrote a few good articles on  use of the MG. as to it being a big MG to pack around  well pack aroung the carl g at least you can use the mg a little more then the 84 .  i recall dfs has to pack the 50 every now and then. i dont want to do that


----------

