A question for the machine gun experts

[Vintovka]

Just for the sake of informative/interesting discussion. Which would you say is a superior general purpose machine gun- the Soviet PKM or its Czech counterpart, the UK59? You see lots of AK vs VZ58 stuff out there, but google had little to offer with regard to the machine gun side of it.

[Cheetah]

General purpose is pretty broad. What application/purpose? For "general purpose" I wouldn't really choose either. When compared to smaller/smaller caliber MGs, both of these are relatively difficult to transport, expensive to feed, ammo is heavy, etc.

For the sake of my reasoning, I'm counting "general" purpose as covering the widest range of uses. To me, a medium machine gun is probably not the most versatile simply because of its size and weight. Certainly, they're going to be a couple of top contenders for medium MGs. I don't really know much about the UK59, but PKMs are robust and reliable, even difficult to beat in many ways.

Are you looking for transferrables, or just an intellectual discussion? For uses, are we talking military applications where you need to consider vehicle mounting, defensive emplacements, urban/MOUT vs. mountain employment, etc.? Or casual shooter/NFA enthusiast uses that vary from square range to square range for fun?

[CRAMBONE]

I would go with the Polish version of the PK. UKM(?) it's chambered in 7.62 nato. But then I would just happy owning a semi PK. IMO the Soviets bettered NATO in regards to the PK vs everything NATO. Hard to beat an 18lb belt fed 7.62.

Cheetah,
You stated general purpose is a broad term, it is supposed to be a broad term. That is the purpose of those machine guns. That entire genre (PKs, Mag58s, MG3s etc) are designed to do multiple jobs well. And the PK design excels at it. You mention weight and transportability, but if you go with a smaller caliber or lighter weapon system you are longer in GPMG territory and are entering the automatic rifle/squad automatic weapon side.

[Cheetah]

Then what precludes a lighter MG from qualifying for "general purpose?" Obviously there are advantages to larger caliber MGs, or they wouldn't be in use around the world, so please don't think I'm speaking out against 7.62 MGs by any means. But you can't simply say "general purpose is the purpose of those machine guns," because it literally doesn't make any sense. WHAT is the purpose we're trying to serve? I'll admit I failed to consider the OP was asking about a couple medium MGs, so it's safe to stay in the realm they typically cover.

But to play devils advocate, by defining squad automatic weapons by lighter would be erroneous, since the M249 SAW weighs more than a PKM, and is probably around 47283742 times less reliable. PK's are far from being not man portable, so I'm not suggesting it's disqualified from any "category" due to weight or transportability. Just wondering what uses the OP's after.

There's also a 7.62 NATO version of the UK59 in the Vz59N, but again, I have no real-world exposure to the 59's to know if they live up to Bren standards for reliability.

[Vintovka]

I'm thinking more along the lines of an intellectual discussion about the two in comparison to each other. I own a Marcolmar semi-auto UK59, and am curious as to how its full-auto counterparts have fared since its adoption by the Czechs many years ago. I've read about it seeing limited use in Vietnam as well as more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's all just short blurbs stating that the machine guns were used there. Never any details about how they performed or how well-liked they were by the users. Obviously most will agree that the PK/PKM basically sets the standard for a 7.62mm machine gun in many aspects. That makes me curious about how the UK59, which was designed and produced slightly before the PK, has fared. I'm sure both were in development at around the same time frames, but the UK was adopted in 1959, while the PK wasn't adopted until 1961. Does the UK have any distinct advantages over the PK on the battlefield?