Full video including range footage is available on the History of Weapons & War streaming app:
https://forgottenweapons.vhx.tv/videos/negev-7-4k
The Israeli Negev machine gun had a rather long development cycle, beginning in 1985 but not seeing final completion and issue until 1997. Once on the market, it proved to be a pretty successful weapon, used by the Israeli military and also a number of export client around the world. In 2012, IMI released an improved newer version, the Negev 7. This was made exclusively as a 7.62mm NATO caliber gun, as opposed to the original Negev which was only made in 5.56mm NATO.
Thanks to Sellier & Bellot for giving me access to this modern machine gun to film for you!
Full video on the original Negev in 5.56mm:
What is the tripod like? Asking for a friend.
LOL…
What’s funny about this, John? I was logging in to make that exact same comment…
I am, apparently, just that predictable.
Sadly, I suspect that the Israelis have the American disease when it comes to tripods. I don’t think anyone these days really recognizes what can be done with one, and because of that… Zero development.
One has to wonder what DISA would come up with, given modern carbon-fiber and titanium as materials. If I were looking to design something myself, I’d look to the high-end bicycle manufacturers as potential consultants/fabricators, and then try to update the basic Lafette that DISA first put under the Madsen.
Which is a thing that’s a little nuts, when you think about it: Possibly the most advanced/versatile tripod in the world when it went into production, put under a veritable Coelacanth of an MG, one that was single-position magazine-fed…
Totally insane, that historical fact. Coupled with the fact that we’ve got some of the most advanced machineguns in history that are today sitting on top of the same half-ass tripod that was designed for the M1919 Browning series…
While it’s a bit of a very rueful and ironic joke, the point is still there: Where the f*ck are the modern tripods, ones that actually add capabilities to match the modern MG systems?
It does seem to be a forgotten art doesn’t it?
Perhaps for the USA the rot set in when the M1917 Browning was “replaced” by the M60, and took its tripod with it. No reason really that the tripod could not have been kept and used by the M60. But it was the 1950s, and anything which was not atomic was seen as fairly useless. The US Army was lucky to get any sort of new rifle and machine gun in that context. I expect someone was working on a nuclear 7.62mm somewhere.
Technically, the M1917 tripod is even worse; it’s flippin’ huge:
https://smallarmsreview.com/m1917-tripod/
and here:
https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-u-s-wwii-colt-browning-m1917a1-30-caliber-machine-gun-tripod-with-cradle-dated-1943?variant=32004339368005
also, here:
https://www.saracenexports.com/product/browning-m1917-tripod/
The Browning tripod that they copied for the M122 that went under the M60 and everything since is here:
https://www.ima-usa.com/products/u-s-browning-m1919a4-30-cal-m2-tripod-with-pintle-and-t-e
The raw, sad fact is that the people doing that think that “A tripod is a tripod…” and really have no idea of how to use one, or what advantages can be gained from having one that’s light, portable, and rapidly adaptable to terrain.
The mathematical equation of “1800m>800m” is seemingly an elusive and difficult to comprehend concept. It takes you longer to get the M122 or it’s titanium successor the M192 into operation than it does a Lafette and the Lafette is exponentially more capable. Something they miss, completely…
“(…)working on a nuclear 7.62mm somewhere.”
I am not sure if it does count as one, but there was uranium 7.62 NATO round developed, see 1st photo from top https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/ordnance-ammo/7-62-nato-depleted-uranium-rounds-793491/
excellent presentation. as usual. thanks.
Sorry, does cartridge get pushed forward through disintegrating belt or extracted from belt before chambering? Feed ramp is where?
I’ve seen Negev 7 firing, and the ROF reported here seems to be WILDLY incorrect. You can really count the ammo as they are fired. it’s a 500-600 RPM MG.
That was the detail that was tickling my subconscious, thank you…
Over on Wikipedia, the following is published:
850–1050 RPM (Negev and Negev NG-5)
600–750 RPM (Negev NG-7)
Now, you look at that and you can think of two things: One, that Ian conflated the two versions, quoting the rate of fire for the NG-7, or that the nice folks at Sellier & Bellot are able to ascertain ground truth in the matter via the ability to fire their weapon over their chronographs, as a presumed part of cartridge development/quality control… Which is why they’ve got those things in the first place, I presume. Which sort of assumes that the nice people at Sellier & Bellot are not using this “need” as a reason to build up a really, really cool firearms collection in a country that frowns on such things…
It’s probably the testing, but… Man, if I had the money? That’s exactly what I’d do; build an ammo production plant and then buy in all kinds of guns to use in “testing” that ammo… 🙂
“(…)a 500-600 RPM MG.”
IWI itself https://iwi.us/firearms/negev/ng7-lmg/ claims
Rate of Fire (Approx.) (rds/min) 600~750 (position 1 & 2)
which suggesting that it could reach 600 depending at some position
The only regulation is that of the gas. Maybe overgassing it you obtain 750 rpm.
I heard it firing far slower than 600 RPM. Even at less than 9 rounds per second. But maybe it was firing underpowered commercial .308 rounds.