What would a belt fed have over a mag fed rifle that uses a higher capacity magazine?  Say like a Surefire or Beta mag?

Just wondering at why would someone pay big money for a 249, Shrike, RPD, and other belt feds.  I can see a collector buying them, but beyond that, I am not seeing it, especially with prices.

Well a belt can be 300 rounds long and a mag can't.

But mostly I think it is just "cool factor"

I had a belt fed 22lr AR upper and when I could get it to run it was cool. But that was about it. I had more fun shooting 22lr mag fed guns.
But the belt would draw the comments and jealousy of folks at the range.

100rd belts work

100rd mags dont.

Also quick cjange barrels longer suppresion

I get the 300 rd belt point, but aren't most 100?  And isn't it easier/quicker to change mags than belts?

I've used a Surefire 100 that was loaded close to max.  It worked fine multiple times with a Slidefire.

Cloth 1919 belts are 225 or 250.  Just about everything else can be linked up as long as you'd like.  DM-1 belts, for example, are 50rds but can be linked to other belts - I have one loaded with 1000rds (20 belts continuous)

1. Cool factor. Belt feds are cool as hell. Like Miles Davis letting you pick up your date in his car kind of cool.
2. Theoretically unlimited ammunition?

But mostly cool factor. They're complex, they're expensive, links are a pain in the ass. But they're so damn cool.

A good gun team in a prepared position won't have to reload at all.

In an ambush you can fire a thousand rounds in a burst and then change barrels and put in a new belt.

You either get it or you don't.

The mechanisms that feed them are cool.
Different styles of belts are cool.
A CHAIN OF BULLETS is just fucking cool.

Most belt Feds have tripods and quick change barrels and lets be honest, there's a CHAIN OF BULLETS

Loaded close to max........ Still not a hundred then.

Changing a belt is pretty fast. How fast can you load a 100 round mag?

Our CROWS m240 has multiple belts linked...over 1000 rounds. Don't want to climb on top of the vehicle to reload that pig during a fight. Mags take up more room, heavy, expensive, take longer to load, etc. Lower capacity is the big one though.

Imagine a 100 round mag for a 240 or M2...

The biggest difference is belt length.

A good assistant gunner will keep you rocking and rolling til the gun melts down.  As long as he has ammo he can add a link when the gunner gets about halfway down.

In the Abrams, the coax machine gun has 3800 rounds linked in a giant box beside the gun.

Mag changes are faster than belt changes, but if you have hundreds of rounds on one belt you don't need to change anything.  

A basic load for a soldier with an M4 is about 250 rounds I think.  They can carry more if they want to I suppose.

The SAW has a belt of 200.  

Most .30 cal MGs have 100 round belts.

When I was a 60 gunner I always carried 100 on the gun and at least 300 in my pack.

In one ambush I had 500 all linked together and no AG.  When I displaced, I had a giant belt of 300 rounds I was trying to manage, all while running down a sandy hill.  The belt won, it wrapped around my legs and I went down the hill the hard way.  The other guys thought it was hilarious.

Makes sense everyone. Thanks.

It's faster to fire off a 100rd belt than three 30rd mags.

Belt feds are just plain cool.

Id say it has something to do with open bolt vs close bolt just to add something different to the discussion. These were designed from the ground up to shoot high volumes, where as guns designed for magazines aren't really designed for high volume constant firing

As a civie their plain cool. Don't you wanna be the dude on the block with the beltfed?

Oh come on, what's cooler than this?





Perhaps this?

Belt feds are just so much more fun to shoot.

Semi-auto belt feds are completely worthless. Basically they look cool and are a fun conversation piece. Imagine if Chevy offered the corvette in a 4-cylinder 100 hp option that cost half the price. Sure it looks cool, but its just not the same.


Full-auto is really the only way to take advantage of a belt fed. The M249, Shrike, and RPD are all examples of Light Machine Guns (LMGs) Belt fed MGs, they usually fire an intermediate cartridge (5.56, 308, 7.62x39, etc..), have a bipod, open bolt design, and a quick change barrel. They are used for suppressive fire and engaging area targets at long ranges. The advantage of a belt fed is sustained rate of fire, the belt allows you to continue firing without reloading, only stopping if you need to change barrels or you run out of ammo. But there are many draw backs, as they are large, heavy, difficult to reload, require additional training, may require a second person to carry spare barrels and extra belted ammunition. It also takes longer to reload a belt than it does to change a mag. As a civilian you must buy your own firearms, and unfortunately the artificial supply of transferable MGs created by the NFA and Hughes Amendment has made most belt feds nearly impossible for the average person to own with costs varying from $15k for a M1919 at the low end to $200k+ for a M240B. Even post samples, can costs $5,000-20,000 (you will need to be a class 3 dealer for this) and that's before optics, spare barrels, lasers, lights, linked ammo, ammo pouches, spare parts, etc...


A belt fed LMG is pretty much useless for personal and home defense. As a civilian almost all violent crimes will come as a surprise. Outside of the home you will only be able to carry your CCW pistol with you so a belt fed is not even an option. Inside your home its possible to keep one loaded next to your night stand per se but you will be fighting in close quarters against maybe 1-3 attackers actively breaking into or possible already in your home, the last thing you want to grab is a 30lb belt fed with a massive bipod, magnified optic, and a 100-200 round belt hanging off the side dragging on the ground. Home defense is more suited for a suppressed MK18 upper on a M16/AR15 lower with a 30 round mag or other CQBR/PDW.

Swapping belts after 200rds on my buddies Shrike upper and m16 lower is much quicker than doing 6 mags changes. Besides, NOTHING puts a bigger smile on my face than ripping a 200rd belt downrange

Belts are more reliable/durable for the capacity they offer. Easy to link up 1,000+ rounds. Less weight than mags. Some guns are temperamental to sand/dust/mud, for them, keeping your brass clean is key.

Standard mags don't offer enough capacity for the bulk. 40 round pmags are as good as it gets.

Surefire 4-column mags are iffy on reliability. They are very unforgiving of poor maintenance. Springs wear out quickly.

Drums are bulky and heavy. Magpul's D60 is the best I've seen. Others are heavier or unreliable.

Sustained full auto fire

Mag guns aren't in the same realm for sustained fire. 

If you have a failure of a link on a 100 round belt, you clear the stoppage and keep going. If a 100 round mag fails, you lose whatever was in the mag.

Typically (Browning designs aren't) beltfeds are open bolt which is better in a sustained fire application. Less chance of cookoff in a really hot barrel.

And as mentioned, you can run LONG belts. 850 rounds is a lot of mags

Decide what you are trying to accomplish.

For mounting a setup on a tripod or vehicle or whatever the belt fed works better than mag fed in my opinion.

I also agree that the firearms designed as belt fed have a nice mystique.

The 100rd drum mags sort of kind or try to bridge the gap but reading where they break if dropped or can't be kept loaded for some designs, or on ak stuff should not be kept wound up if chinese design, a belt in an ammo can is a nice option.

After living through the clinton ban years, I just see it as a nice middle finger to those who feel mag capacity limits are alright.  I also say the same thing about a bayonet lug and lot of other stuff.

The problem is not the firearms but they don't care.  If they ever told the truth the firearms would be seen as the problem to their concept of world domination.

Going prone with a 100 round mag (or a 40 round mag) sucks.

Back in the day, belts were more reliable as a feed system than most older magazines. Original MGs weren't designed with mobility at all a factor, they were emplaced on their tripod, most were water cooled, and lots and lots of ammo was brought to the gun to keep it fed. So with belts came reliability, higher capacity, and best of all supply was easier since ammo cans contained their belted ammo, while those needed to be fed by magazines came on stripper clips that first had to be loaded into mags, then the magazines stores in some sort of box or pouch, then inserted into the gun. So ammo supplies could rush forward to a gun team and just crack the box open and rock and roll, but for instance a BAR or BREN needed someone to fill magazines first. The only limiting factor on belts is that some types aren't reliable, if they get dirty (especially from Mexican carrying belts) they might not feed properly, and the feed prawns on the feed tray cover might not be strong enough to adequately pull them, especially in adverse conditions. One of the reasons the cyclic rate of the MG-42 was so high was that in perfect conditions they shot 1100-1300 rpm, but when dirty or extremely cold they still could manage 700-900 rpm, which the MG34 couldn't do (it sucked dirty or cold).

Present day machine gun designs and theory are just carry overs of from the mid-20th century, nothing truly novel in MG has come about in quite some time.

You can also do this

Sweet MG42... What's a transferable one of those run nowadays?

More rounds

I know what you meant, but that is great.

It simply doesn't get any cooler than a belt fed, even a semi.

The range toys that seem to get the most attention are belt feds and MP5 clones.

If you're really in/anticipating the shit, you can start linking them ahead of time.

Good catch. Meant pawls.

Fewer reloads.

Sustained high rate of fire but must be accompanied with barrel changes.

Cool relevant thread

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/The-Lost-Art-of-Machinegunnery-/5-1395935/

Fuckin' Jerry. Dude behind the trigger taught my CSW instructor course.

This thread makes me miss my RPD :(

It should

whut he sed.  If you had a RPD and sold it, you should feel bad!

BMG is a hundred.



Please let me know when you find a 100 round BMG magazine, I'm all ears.

It was a vector with weird stock geometry. 

I'd like to pick up a replacement. 

Waiting patiently for your next new post asking why the military wastes their time with machine guns when they can just buy slide fires...

You should

I don't care how gay everyone says a semi belt fed is

Its literally one of my favorite guns to shoot. Seems like its laser beam accurate to 300 yards on steel as well.

Just don't kick off your ambush with an open bolt.

I know, but now I am seeing a M240 with shrimp crammed in the top cover. Feed prawns.

I like my RPD. The 100rd belts are worlds better than the 75rd RPK drums when I initiate my FPF in my AO.

More pew pew pew...........what's not to like  

Because magazine reliability goes down inversely with round count, specially over 40 rounds. Plus its easier to carry belts for reloading than it is to carry the magazines.

They've gotten a bit pricey, but all of them have.


http://www.gunbroker.com/item/698821499

I think his buy it now is pretty optimistic but someone will eventually want it bad enough.