0003595: All M249 PIP variants should not weigh the same

Notes
(0006700) da12thMonkey (administrator) 2017-10-06 15:04 edited on: 2017-10-06 15:34	Nominally yes, we should adjust the weight at some point but I think there's something off with your analysis and results. The 16.5 lb M249 PIP talked about on globalsecurity is the original spec of the improved weapon with buffered solid stock, heat-shield, folding carry handle. These additions saw the weapon's weight increase from the region of 15.16-15.30 when it had the original bufferless skeleton stock. The addition of a railed feed cover increased weight to around the 17 lb mark quoted on FN's site, but the final unloaded weight with a metal tri-rail handguard as quoted by the USMC and PEO soldier, is in the region of 18-18.3 lbs http://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B3M4138%20M249%20Light%20Machine%20Gun.pdf?ver=2015-05-07-103752-850 [^] (P5) http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/equipment/portfolio/index.asp#243 [^] (P244) Also, the issued short barrel assy, is not based on the Mk.46 barrel. The Mk.46 bbl (even the modified one with inserts) has a thinner profile and a completely different gas block. https://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/4996580775 [^] The issued short bbl weighs more than the Mk.46 bbl The civilian semi-auto M249S and M249S PARA are sold with the same accessories, save for the shorter barrel and PARA stock on the latter. And here they quote a weight difference of only 1 lb https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-m249s/ [^] https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-m249s-para/ [^] I can't find a quoted mass of the PARA stock and Solid stock to calculate the barrel weight difference, but evidently the final weight difference isn't that great on PIP versions of the M249 that have the buffer system, heat-shield, folding handle and all those other parts that originally added weight to the gun The PEO Soldier page says the current version with improved bipod, short barrel, tri-rail and collapsible stock is 17.95 lbs. So only around 0.05 lb to 0.35 lb less than the heaviest configuration.

(0006702) fragthecullen (reporter) 2017-10-06 16:40 edited on: 2017-10-06 17:31	You've got a point. The sources vary wildly as to the weights, and I suspect that FN's website may be part of the problem. I had the greatest trouble finding a reliable source of information regarding the barrel - the best I could do is to choose a few sources of information, and build math upon them. Quoting the DTIC study with the standard barrel and Mk 46 Barrel was tempting, but I realize now that their data is suspect, because it's from 2005. The new heavier short barrel probably did not exist at the time of the study. I'm not sure I can accomodate the railed cover in the weight calculations - the M249 PIP (Solid Stock) comes with a standard feed tray cover, and switches to a railed feed tray cover when you choose an optic. Of note, though, is that the PARA model was supposed to have save weight having omitted the charging handle and STANAG magazine port, but this is not addressed with the in-game model - all variants use the same receiver. On a slightly related note, RHS allows you to choose 30 round magazines as your source of ammunition, but when you do, it still plays the full animation for reloading the belt. Not the best situation, but I'm not sure anyone cares, because nobody in real life is willing to trust their lives to the reliability of feeding from a magazine. My next move would be to ask my friend, the small arms repairman, if he has both barrels and all three stocks, and if he would kindly weigh them for me. His response: "So, if I'm any good judge in the hundreds of barrels I've picked up, the weight difference in the barrels is about a pound and a half, the bipod only weighs around 5 oz, and the stock lost about 2 ounces when it switched to the PIP. The Para stock I've only held a handful of times, and don't remember what it felt like, only that it was a piece of shit." "Now that I think about it, a pound and a half of the barrel is a bit much. Realistically, more like 6 or 8 ounces."

(0006703) da12thMonkey (administrator) 2017-10-06 17:43	It's not possible to change magazine models and reload animations on guns in Arma 3 without completely replacing the weapon itself. We have no plans to script this and make a dozen additional model files, just for the sake of adding a STANAG magazine model that are rarely used. As for deleting the STANAG mag well on the PARA model. This was only done on the M249 SPW (short-lived special forces variant) and Mk.46 receivers. M249 PARA still has a common receiver with the standard M249. Including the mag-well and charging handle. Some 2001-2003 era PARAs: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/army-soldiers-participate-in-urban-warfare-training-january-13-2003-picture-id1722633 [^] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Defense.gov_News_Photo_041016-A-7306A-010.jpg [^] Though not M249s, Minimi PARAs in other nations also still have the magazine well. Some of the latest version of M249 have a skeletonised charging handle like Mk.46 however. We have a former 101st Abn guy on staff who would tell us to use the Mk.46 receiver if it was necessary on the M249 PARA

(0006704) fragthecullen (reporter) 2017-10-06 18:21 edited on: 2017-10-06 18:30	You've got great points. Regarding the magazine well, I wasn't requesting that you remodel the weapon or redo/add animations. The simplest solution is to remove the 30 round magazines from the config.bin, so they can't be selected from the arsenal for this weapon; it's not feasible or reasonable to ask you to support an alternate reload animation. I've taken the direct route - I called FN technical support, and they'll get back to me about someone who can get me the information regarding the weights of the various parts reflected in the in-game selections. This space reserved for their responses.

(0006942) fragthecullen (reporter) 2017-10-31 21:05 edited on: 2017-11-01 03:33	Finally! FN blew me off the first time around, and I only just now got around to some free time after work - I called FN again, and a nice gentlemen in the R&D department weighed the parts for me. The solid stock w/ hydraulic buffer weighs 2.1 lbs, the para stock weighs 1.6 lbs - they did not have the modern collapsible stock lying around; that will have to wait for my friend in the Army to finish the course he's attending, and he'll have one on hand. The long barrel assembly, with heat shield, weighs 4.5 lbs, and the short barrel weighs 4.3 lbs. The bipod assembly weighs 1.1 lbs. I'll redo the math when I can get my friend to weigh the collapsible stock. Should only be a few more days.

(0006986) da12thMonkey (administrator) 2017-11-08 17:37	Have made some adjustments to the weapon weight for the next version, based on the data you provided for different stock and barrel weights. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SWy0LCO9Dn37nYz9VYVo82gw73HcGLTY_N1p501y6oU/edit?usp=sharing [^] Bipod weight provided to you by FN seems to be the new improved one, with the older bipod weighing a bit more (closer to 2lbs like you suggested before). Apparently the Savit collapsible stock weighs about the same as the old solid stock, or perhaps a bit more: http://www.armslist.com/posts/3097345/clarksville-gun-parts-for-sale--rifle-gun-collapsible-black-buttstock-m249-saw-army [^] (WT 2.58 on the packing label suggests the item weighs roughly 2.58lbs) But have used the same weight as the solid stock, as provided by you. New collapsible stock weighs less, but we don't have those ingame yet. Weight difference of the feed cover and handguard rails has been inferred from the USMC and PEO Soldier data. Will keep an eye out for more data and adjust in future. But for now at least there will be some difference in the weapons based on their length, stock type, rails etc. as you requested

(0007005) fragthecullen (reporter) 2017-11-10 21:19 edited on: 2017-11-10 21:20	Damn. I was about to give you another update - My friend finally finished his course, and weighed the Savit stock with his digital fish scale. It weighs 2.09 lbs, according to that scale. That's roughly in line with your figures, so thank you, I appreciate you handling this!

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2017-10-06 12:26	fragthecullen	New Issue
2017-10-06 12:28	fragthecullen	Description Updated	View Revisions
2017-10-06 12:33	fragthecullen	Additional Information Updated	View Revisions
2017-10-06 12:34	fragthecullen	Description Updated	View Revisions
2017-10-06 15:04	da12thMonkey	Note Added: 0006700
2017-10-06 15:34	da12thMonkey	Note Edited: 0006700	View Revisions
2017-10-06 16:40	fragthecullen	Note Added: 0006702
2017-10-06 16:41	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 16:46	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 17:01	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 17:01	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 17:02	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 17:31	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 17:31	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006702	View Revisions
2017-10-06 17:43	da12thMonkey	Note Added: 0006703
2017-10-06 18:21	fragthecullen	Note Added: 0006704
2017-10-06 18:26	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006704	View Revisions
2017-10-06 18:30	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006704	View Revisions
2017-10-31 21:05	fragthecullen	Note Added: 0006942
2017-10-31 21:47	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006942	View Revisions
2017-11-01 03:33	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0006942	View Revisions
2017-11-08 17:37	da12thMonkey	Note Added: 0006986
2017-11-08 17:37	da12thMonkey	Status	new => resolved
2017-11-08 17:37	da12thMonkey	Fixed in Version	=> 0.4.4
2017-11-08 17:37	da12thMonkey	Resolution	open => fixed
2017-11-08 17:37	da12thMonkey	Assigned To	=> da12thMonkey
2017-11-10 21:19	fragthecullen	Note Added: 0007005
2017-11-10 21:20	fragthecullen	Note Edited: 0007005	View Revisions

Relationships