This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
The 7.62×54mmR machine gun feed pawl mechanism is radically different than that of 7.62×51mm NATO chambered machine guns based on the MG 42 machine gun feeding method, using a small, simple pivoting arm pushed out to the right side by the bolt carrier, rather than a much larger (and therefore much heavier) articulated feed cam, lever, and pawl assembly.
...is totally ambiguous. Because I know how neither of these weapons work, I don't know what the article is trying to say. Someone who knows (from a source other than the article, I guess) should rewrite this to be clearer. All I can tell from this is that someone thinks one of these two designs is heavier and more complicated than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.38.243 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
