Talk:CETME Ameli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Magazine Insert?

Could the Ameli be fitted with a magazine insert like the FN Minimi?

User:EX STAB

No. Koalorka (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koalorka - Reason for reversion of my edits?

Greetings - I would like to know what you found objectionable in my edits for this article - I broke up several run-on sentences, reworded several sentences to eliminate repetitive terminology (the word "Spanish" appears four times in the first sentence), and broke up the "Design Details" section into more easily-readable paragraphs. I made no changes in the facts of the article.

I believe that my edits enhance clarity and readability of the article.

Thank you.

GMan552 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought they removed quite a bit of content. Let me go over that again, I may have removed it in haste, seeing as you have no user page I thought you might be a vandal. Koalorka (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I reviewed it, and I really don't see the need to butcher so much of my text, unless you can prove it is poorly worded, incorrect or grammatically flawed. It's structured so that the article moves from method of operation to particular features and accessories. Koalorka (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

So good-faith edits are now "butchering text"?

OK, let's see:

The article starts with a run-on sentence with two independent clauses:

1. "The Ameli (short for Spanish: Ametralladora Ligera or "Light machine gun") is a Spanish 5.56 mm light machine gun"; and

2. [It was] "designed at the nationally-owned and run research institute Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales – CETME (founded by the Spanish government in 1950), at the start of the 1980s for the Spanish Army."

In addition, foreign words are italicized in English, and I placed the "Ame" and "Li" portions of their respective words in bold type to emphasize the source of the acronym "Ameli".

I have also added the fact that Santa Bárbara Sistemas is now part of General Dynamics European Land Systems (as of July 2001.)

In the "Design Details" section, I placed a paragraph break before the sentence which starts, "The bolt assembly consists of a bolt head..." as there is a subject change from the previous paragraph. It also makes it easier to read, as opposed to an undifferentiated mass of text.

As for my lack of a user page - well, you have me there. I will remedy this as soon as possible.

GMan552 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asams10 - question on the "citation needed" in "Design Details"

Just curious - did you place the "citation needed" in this section due to the claim "Due in part to the significantly lower-powered intermediate cartridge (compared to a full-size rifle caliber round) used in the Ameli..."?

If so, you have a good point, because if the roller-delayed blowback action was used in the Ameli because of the lower-powered 5.56 round, then why was it also used in the CETME A, B and C rifles and in the HK G3, all of which use the more powerful 7.62x51 NATO round?

Would it be more accurate to change the first two sentences to read:

"The Ameli is an automatic weapon and externally resembles the 7.92 mm MG42 machine gun. However, unlike the MG42's roller-locked short recoil system (where the barrel and bolt recoil together a short distance before they unlock), the Ameli uses the delayed blowback method of operation with a fixed barrel and rollers which retard the rearward movement of the bolt head."

According to the General Dynamics Santa Bárbara Sistemas page on the Ameli (sorry, I can't link directly, as that site uses frames),

"The machine gun has a CETME semi rigid bolt system using rollers permiting (sic) the use of any ammunition of the appropriate caliber." GD/SBS site, click on Products and Projects / Weapons Systems / Light Weapons / Ameli - Light Machinegun

I interpret this as the Ameli using the same roller-delayed blowback system as the CETME rifles.

GMan552 (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are you attempting to achieve? Yes, the Ameli uses the same roller delayed blowback mechanism as the CETME A, B, C and L rifles and G3. Yes, the 7.62 mm NATO and 5.56 mm NATO rounds produce a lower recoil impulse than the 7.92 mm Mauser. This was quoted verbatim from my source. I'll try to complete the list of references later on. Koalorka (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Koalorka - Asams10 had originally placed a {citation needed} tag on the original sentence:

"Due in part to the significantly lower-powered intermediate cartridge (compared to a full-size rifle caliber round) used in the Ameli, the weapon’s operating principle was modified from the short recoiling barrel system of the MG42 to the delayed blowback method of operation using rollers that retard the rearward movement of the bolt head."

I believe he did so because he was not aware at the time that the Ameli was indeed a roller-delayed blowback gun, but thought it was a scaled-down version of the roller-locked short-recoil MG42 (we have discussed this in Talk:Blowback (arms))

For my part, I edited the sentence as there was no citation to show that the change in the operating system was due (even in part) to the change to lower-recoil ammunition, and not just because the designers found that the roller-delayed blowback system was less expensive or easier to manufacture. If there is such a citation, I apologize and will revert my edit.

I also apologize for the confusion regarding "full-size rifle caliber round" - I was under the mistaken impression that the 7.62x51mm NATO fell into this category - obviously it does not compare in recoil to the 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge - I have had the distinct displeasure of firing the 7.92 Mauser from a Yugoslav 24/47 bolt-action rifle, and gave up after three rounds.

GMan552 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read and compared your edits, I think they're actually pretty good. The mention of the switch in operating system from short recoil to delayed blowback had the potential to confuse a lot of users, since the G3 and others did in fact use delayed blowback, despite using a rifle-caliber round. Thanks for the input. Koalorka (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)