Didn't they try this a couple years ago? What could it be this time?
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-medium-machine-gun/

>>64012257 (OP)
The M480: after lightening the components enough to make it half the weight of the M240, they taped two together and synchronized their fire rate for twice the action.

>>64012257 (OP)
>Didn't they try this a couple years ago?
That was SOCOM. I believe they ended up selecting the Sig MG338 and I assume the Army will be purchasing it as well.

>>64012280
>another Sig turd
Wow, amazing.

>>64013411
Whatever makes them weaker makes you stronger

>>64012280
>Sig MG338
this bitch shoots 338 NM
how the fuck is the army going to afford to train machine gunners?

>>64015452
Your tax dollars retard.

>>64015501
The Army already lacks money to buy new fancy toys(m10), this sigger shit won't help.

>>64012257 (OP)
What's wrong with M240 though?

>>64015516
We absolutely have the money for more light tanks.

The Army realized that they werent really “light” anymore (protection means weight. Cant forgo protection anymore), so they canned the project

>>64015552
The people whose palms they had to grease to get the M240B approved have long since retired, and the Pentagon is thirsty for some freshly greased palms.

>>64015552
It's super heavy for a gun that only shoots 7.62x51mm.

>>64015781
that's why they decided that the ammo must also be super heavy and switch to .338NM. good job inventing HMG again 100 years later except even worse.

does .338 even offer any meaningful ballistic advantage over the 7mm SIGGER or whatever it's called besides heavier bullet weight?

>>64015906
.338NM is a round for MMGs. It's meant to provide the effective range of 50cal in a man portable package. The m240 isn't for that. It's a GPMG. I expect its replacement to be a little lighter and able to chamber 6.8mm. Basically a beefed up version of the m250 that can be stuck on vehicles.

>>64012257 (OP)
Ya mum dildo

>>64012257 (OP)
>Replace SAW with a GPMG that's arguably as bad as the M7
>Open bid for a GPMG replacement that might not be the same gun
>sigger 6.8 and .338 MGs are probably still front runners
where do people even get ideas like this
If it absolutely has to be a .338 then my vote is for the REAPR or a rehashed LWMMG.
>>64015906
>heavier bullet weight
Well, yeah. Not that I don't agree with you, but it fits well with the overmatch concept of NGSW considering that it can give close to .50 BMG range in a man portable package, which maybe would have been useful for special forces in Afghanistan (regardless of how valid of a concern this might be).

>>64015924
>.338NM is a round for MMGs. It's meant to provide the effective range of 50cal in a man portable package.
.338 is twice as heavy as .308 which is already heavy enough that army cucks replaece it with a worthless SAW. it's man portable with 5 seconds worth of ammo.

.338 "MMG" is an ungodly abomintion of a HMG that larps as something else, much like those ultralight chink .50 cal machineguns with mouse fart ammo and scoped grenade launchers in place of squad mg.

>>64015933
>but it fits well with the overmatch concept of NGSW considering that it can give close to .50 BMG range
6.8 sigger already has superior ballistics to the .308 while being lighter. compared to it a .338 would be even less of an improvement than it is compared to .308. it also doesn't even approach the capabilities of .50 BMG in either anti-materiel, penetrative or long range roles, not even close. it makes no sense as a separate weapon system, let alone when considered within the forces upgunned with 6.8 sigger machineguns and rifles.

>>64012257 (OP)
We can still redeem ourselves by adopting the REAPR, as long as Sig doesn't redeem us first

>>64012257 (OP)
This shit is retarded from a logistics standpoint but if anyone can manage to pull it off supply-wise it is the burgers.

>>64012257 (OP)
>hey you know all these guns that still work really well and only really need modernisation updates
>lets replace them with basically garbage
This is basically how I see US procurement everytime

>>64015940
Okay. The replacement for the M240 probably will be a 7.62 or 6.8mm caliber weapon, though. 338NM has great stats on paper, but even the army would wince at the price of feeding all their vehicle mounted guns, coaxial guns, and turrets with that round. The MMG is a special purpose weapon, while the GPMG is just that. General purpose.

>Army wants to replace the M240

H-henlo? Isn't 6.8x51 supposed to be better than REAL FUCKING NATO?

>>64015555
>We absolutely have the money for
$37.1 trillion in debt.

>>64016022
>37.1 trillion debt
>most of it to itself
and?

>>64016022
Make me pay, bitch.

>>64016022
debt is only an issue if someone comes along to collect it
it would only be a problem if we cut down on military spending and eventually get eclipsed in the future

>>64016015
>though. 338NM has great stats on paper
it depends on what you're comparing it to. if it's .308 or 5.56 then sure, absolutely. if it's .50 cal then it takes the role of .308 in this comparison. if it's 6.8 sigger which is basically a miniaturlized magnum cartridge with similarly long aerodynamic bullet then you're not actually gaining much in terms of trajectory, just more bullet weight at the cost of ammo weight, which is a questionable tradeoff for man portable stuff at best.
>all their vehicle mounted guns, coaxial guns, and turrets
pretty much already use .50 cal which is perfect for the job. the cost isn't an issue and coaxials won't be using .338 for the same reason they're not using .50 - too much bulk for too little ammo. coaxial is already meant for anti-personnel use because for anything else there's a main gun.

>>64016168
Wait, what happened to all the fiscal conservative strawmans to why we can't do this for healthcare and infrastructure?

>>64016034
>>37.1 trillion debt
>>most of it to itself
>and?

You need to pay rent (interest) on that debt.

>>64012257 (OP)
>inb4 another Sig product gets adopted with any testing.

Why did NM become so widespread instead of LM?

The .338 GPMG actually sort of makes sense to me, but it would have made a lot more sense if the Army hadn't gone full retard with the NGSW. They should have adopted a new cartridge and weapon system matching the capability of the M4 in a much lighter and more compact package, and a new cartridge and systems matching the weight of existing 7.62 weapons with increased capability.

Imagine if instead of 6.8 sigger, the NGSW had been chambered for something like a polymer cased .20 VarTarg. It would be small and light enough that you could make a bullpup PDW with a 70-round P90-style magazine and still come in lighter than an M4. A little more awkward to reload than an M4, but you'd be reloading less than half as often so it's a net benefit, even lower recoil than .223, and enough velocity from an M4-length weapon (probably an 18-20" barrel) to get the explosive terminal effects that the M16 was originally known for.

Then, on the other end of the spectrum, a ".338 Backcountry" GPMG and DMR with far greater range and power than 7.62. The cartridge would weigh a bit more, but it would be offset by lighter weapons than the M110 and M240, and with the reduced load for riflemen you could scatter a few spare belts around without blowing out any knees.

>>64017693
again, and? I don't think the buisness's that do 90-99% of their work WITH the US is going to cash in on that debt and ruin their biggest, most primary cilent. The interest on top of what they already owe already gets paid off and where it can, but thinking for one second that the defence and oil industries that are based in the US that the US owes trillions to will suddenly decide to shoot the roof of their mouth is brain dead retarded

>>64016270
It's not a questionable trade-off. 338NM wipes the floor with .308 in terms of penetrative power vs light skinne
d vehicles. It retains this potency past 800m, while .308 is spent and guttering. Not to mention the bonus to accuracy if we're using precision rifles, which we aren't. A .338NM MMG is a potent tool.

>>64012257 (OP)
TV offered the solution but noooooo we couldn't have non jews get the contract.

>>64016015
>>64016020
Why not just take one of those new lightened, modernized m60s, chamber them in a 6.8 with a normal pressure and an all steel case to save weight

>>64015516
nigga zion don just got the biggest military budget ever in the history of the usa passed in his big booty bill

>>64015552
the 240? nothing its a great coax. the 240B? its heavy as fuck. However we fixed this with the L model

>>64016020
Yes, hence the question of why bother issuing a heavier rifle with decreased performance when you could replace it with a .338 norma MMG that gives a weapons squadron the suppression and range capabilities of a BMP

>>64012257 (OP)
I hope they pick the hideouts little neo-DP/MG34

i think we should go back to m1 garands, m1911s, and m1919s.

>>64019256
heavier MG*

>>64019163
>It's not a questionable trade-off. 338NM wipes the floor with .308 in terms of penetrative power vs light skinned vehicles.
It better be for essentially half the ammo capacity of .308. Compared to 6.8 sigger it's closer to 1/3 of the ammo capacity you get.
>It retains this potency past 800m, while .308 is spent and guttering.
If you took a second to read my post instead of drooling on the keyboard you'd notice that i was comparing it to 6.8 sigger, not .308. That round has ballistics much closer to .338 than .308.
>Not to mention the bonus to accuracy if we're using precision rifles
What a retarded thing to say. Caliber doesn't change accuracy to begin with,
>A .338NM MMG
.. isn't an MMG, it's a failed abortion of a HMG that's garbage at both anti-material roles and portability.

Calling it questionable is an understatement, in zero cases you would want your infantry portable machinegun to have less than half as much ammo to feed into it for the sake of the off chance it might penetrate something that a 6.8 sigger wouldn't.

>>64019552
6.8 sigger is ballistically identical to real fuckin NATO, it just does it out of a shorter barrel.

>>64019559
Wrong. Even if it had a similar energy and velocity as .308(which it significantly exceeds) it's got a much more aerodynamic bullet which alone would extend its range significantly past what .308 is capable of.

>>64019256
Because they can only carry half the ammo so why fucking bother when most engagement ranges are under the accurate range of the current LMG anyway?
Unless its 6.8, which is lighter and matches 7.62 in nearly every aspect, there's not much room for moving around in the LMG space and at least 6.8 can be applied to service rifles too for ammo commonality.
It's the same curse as .50BMG. Its a goldilocks zone where its big enough to do its job and there's not really a reason to replace it due to anything bigger being massively more expensive for little gain and anything smaller being less capable than an HMG.
Especially since the only feasible replacement is to replace the .50 and the co-axial on tanks with .338 each just to increase the general ammunition for both guns at the cost of having a capable anti-light vehicle weapon that you can't* use on people.
*you still do

>>64012257 (OP)
Reminds me when they tried to replace the M2 Browning with the XM307.

>>64015516
They don't lack money. M10 was cut because it's fucking worthless.

>>64019637
sorry Mk 19 not m2 browning

>>64019615
>when most engagement ranges are under the accurate range of the current LMG anyway?
That might be true for regular infantrymen but fof machinegunners it's definitely not. They can engage targets at much longer ranges a lot more effectively than riflemen or even designated marksmen. That's where 5.56 really proves to be anemic and inferior since it loses most of its effectiveness just past a regular infantryman's range. Even 5.56 DMRs are kinda subpar and it's basically nothing when facing a real GPMG.
>and there's not really a reason to replace it due to anything bigger
the reason is that .50 BMG is already at the upper limit of what can be feasibly mounted on a regular pintle socket without any fuss or thrown on a normal tripod. Any bigger and it's going to be too large and heavy recoiling to fit into those roles so you'd need a dedicated mount for that.

>>64012257 (OP)
If they just accepted the polymer cartridges in the NGSW program they'd have access to a simple conversion that allows 240s to fire polymer 6.5mm. Lighter weight, comparable power.

>>64019665
That same company makes polymer cased 7.62 and 5.56 that require no changes to use. Those are actually the only two products they have for sale.

>>64019552
>Caliber doesn't change accuracy to begin with
Yeah it does. Whether you mean that in the literal sense of bullet dimensions, or in the general sense of different types of bullet, it matters a lot. It affects bullet weight and ballistic coefficient, which have an effect on resistance to wind and how the bullet deals with passing the transonic range.

>6.8mm is just as good at range as .338NM
No it isn't. 338NM starts with and retains much more energy and penetrative power over range. It's effective range is 1700m, while 6.8mm is effective to 800m, which is less than half the distance.

>MMGs aren't portable
The existing .338NM MMGs are lighter than the m240. The SIG Sauer MG 338 weighs 9.7 kg while the M240L (the lightest version of the M240) weighs weighs 10.1 kg.

It looks like MMGs are seriously useful in certain situations. They have the range of a 50cal while being man portable. They can deal with light armor and penetrate significantly more cover than 7.62x51mm GPMGs. You might think the ammo being heavier is a drawback, but not being able to hit the target if they're too far away is a bigger drawback. Gunners don't carry all their own ammo, anyway.

>>64019995
>Yeah it does. Whether you mean that in the literal sense of bullet dimensions, or in the general sense of different types of bullet, it matters a lot.
It doesn't.
>It affects bullet weight and ballistic coefficient
BC is largely independent of the caliber and cartridges with a similar relative capacity firing same form factor bullets will have almost identical trajectories despite the caliber.
>The existing .338NM MMGs are lighter than the m240.
How many times must i repeat that this is about ammo weight you dumb nigger?
>It looks like MMGs are seriously useful in certain situations
Yes, if you're blind and braindead.
> They have the range of a 50cal
They have the range of a .50 cal that was thrown by a toddler.
>They can deal with light armor
Nope.
> You might think the ammo being heavier is a drawback, but not being able to hit the target if they're too far away is a bigger drawback
6.8 sigger has ballistics closer to .338 than .308. It's not just a drawback a .338 failed abortion HMG is a dead weight that's worthless for anything and will be discarded for either a real HMG in a mounted role or for a gun with ammo that can actually be feasibly carried by men.

You've already stated your disingenous garbage drivel and it's still absolute sewage nonsense much like it was before.

>>64019995
>It's effective range is 1700m, while 6.8mm is effective to 800
The .338 nigger is completely delusional and makes shit up, who would've guessed.

>>64012257 (OP)
so why aren't they just replacing both the m249 and m240 with the m250?

>>64020029
>It doesn't.
It does.
>BC is largely independent of the caliber
BC is not independent of the caliber.
>ammo weight
Effectiveness on target.
>They have the range of a .50 cal
Yes.
>Nope.
Yep.
>6.8 sigger has ballistics closer to .338
6.8x51mm is objectively closer to 308 than .338NM in terms of muzzle energy, effective range and use case.

It's time for you to face reality of .338NM being in a class of its own.

>>64020142
Now i know you're just trolling. Kys disingenous nigger.

>>64020156
Don't worry about it. I "accept your concession" and all that. It's fun talking about how awesome the .338NM MMG concept is. Did you know it can fit in a rucksack?

>>64020243
Well then keep talking to yourself. You clearly cannot form a coherent argument even if your life depended on it.

>>64020255
I like talking to you, though. Before the this thread I wasn't that into MMGs, but you helped me realise how useful they can be.

>>64019881
-which way, Pentagon procurement officer?
-keep the existing M240 for free
-change the barrel only to a 6.5-6.8 cal with polymer cases, improving range slightly while doubling the amount of ammo for your system
-buy a whole new 338 gun which is worse than a .50 for HMGs on vehicles and has half the ammo-per-weight of an original 240 for dismounts

Classic. It hurts because a dismounted infantry group moves at the speed of its slowest man carrying the heaviest things, which is typically a machinegun, which is also typically in need of more ammo.

>>64019995
>you might think the ammo being heavier is a drawback, but not being able to hit the target if they're too far away is a bigger drawback
This is completely backwards.

>>64020745
NTA, but being down 300 rounds does not sound fun. Excellent other components though
If only those plastic cartridges could be more prolific, or if there was a way for the assistant gunner to carry more

>>64020745
Yes, let's cut the squad's ammo load in half to get nothing out of a round with identical ballistics and effective range that can't defeat any target or cover that 6.8 can't and is less effective at point blank than .50 BMG is at 3000 yards.

Might as well adopt .45-70 for your retarded "MMG" at this point.

>>64016020
i can't get over that stock, seems lazy and goofy. IWI Negev 7 at least had a adjustable cheek piece.

>>64015933
>REAPR
I like it, also it's made by Gods Chosen People (Ohioans).

god we really cant talk about sig anymore can we? its glocknade 2.0

>>64020745
Why are tripods so heavy? Bipods are not heavy. Could you not just make it lighter and use spades to hold it in the ground?

It is the stability and lever action rather than the mass.

>>64021903

The design is pretty neat. You can bridge optics over the feed tray and still reload since it can slide out to either side.

Left or right side feed mechanism. Open or closed bolt firing (IIRC). Swap calibers without tools. Barrel doesn’t have a bunch of unnecessary extras on it so as to minimize the weight and complexity of spare barrels.

>>64022465

Meant to reply to the reapr posts

>>64017119
Because i dont want my money going to some morbidly obese bitch for all her self caused medical issues, and a doubling off our taxes

>>64020116
250 can't fit in the coax spot which was the entire reason for the 240's adoption

>>64022268
The m240 and m2 tripods are as heavy as they need to be to handle the weight and recoil of their host systems. In theory, the MMGs could have something lighter than the m240's tripod, but that's a whole different procurement program.

>>64021041
I think the idea of the ISV is that it's intended to be on the front lines carrying all of the squad's sustainment gear, so they have a greater weight allowance for combat gear.

>>64015452
What I dont understand is why they are thinking about adopting 338 Norma Magnum when they already have 338 Lapua Magnum for their sniper rifles? Wouldnt that simplify logistics hugely?

>>64024541
Norma works better in MG's. Belts better, allows for 300 gr slug, and better suited for subsonic loads. Also allows for a shorter action than Lapua. I only know this because I just asked chatgpt.

>>64024541
That's like saying .357mag and 9mm are the same thing because they're the same caliber.

>>64024595
Should have asked grok instead.

>>64015516
The Army is the government -- it can never run out of money. It can run out of real resources which would cause the spending to become inflationary beyond a tolerable level, but it can never run out of money. Government spends its own money unit into existence.

>>64017693
The current self-imposed laws require them to pay interest. They have agreed to pay interest to existing bondholders and so they should.

But there is absolutely no natural law or rule of accounting that forces them to pay interest. They absolutely do not need to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pex89N9Oqog

>>64018318
>They should have adopted a new cartridge and weapon system matching the capability of the M4 in a much lighter and more compact package
Which is exactly what LSAT/CTSAS were all about, until they got absolutely hijacked for the 6.8 magnum abomination overmatch bullet. The whole point was to lighten the soldier's burden, allowing them to carry other stuff.

>>64012257 (OP)
Hold yer breaths for what Mossberg has been cooking up.

>>64021041
As one of the few people ITT who has used a 240, it sucks to watch this. Marines love to complain but The Almighty M240B was truly above reproach. It's just that damn good. A 6.8 rebarrel with poly cases would be a tenth the cost and at least 9/10ths the improvement of anything else.

I will say though, I forget where I saw it, but there is a push from the top to simplify ammo logistics. They're trying to go from 5.56, 7.62, 338 Lapua magnum, 50 bmg, and 6.5 creed?? to just 6.8 sigger and 338 Norma mag. Most of that is a good idea but it's clearly forcing compromises that will/are degrading capability, which is double gay when the US is already the undisputed global logistics king.

Also full power 6.8 when? That round is vaporware unless I've missed something.

>>64025920
They're going from 5.56, 7.62, and .50 BMG with some random other cartridges in there to 6.8, .300nm (DMR/sniper rifles), .338nm (GPMG), and .50 BMG (HMG), with some random other cartridges in there.

>>64025920
.50 is not going anywhere, snipers have their own logistic tail regardless and can use whatever.
>Also full power 6.8 when?
idk but 6.8 sigger is not particularly outstanding performer among the caliber, it's just a tiny bit smaller and works better than others in a shorter barrel so it you compromise on these then something like 6.8 Western will give you identical performance.

>>64026481
>.300nm (DMR/sniper rifles)
neither of those. current M2010 sniper rifles use .300 WM while existing DRMs either stick to .308 or use 6.5 Creedmoor. both could be replaced with 6.8 sigger but snipers can do whatever so it's a matter of DMRs and having a round that works with semiauto well. you wouldn't even need a DMR if the sigger rifle wasn't so inaccurate because with this round and their advanced optics every rifle is already one, just slap a bipod on it maybe and you're GTG. that's kind of one benefit of using battle rifles in general - you don't get a lightweight low recoil cartridge like 5.56 but you're also not as hampered by its limited range if you ever do shoot further.
>.338nm (GPMG)
excuse you, it's "MMG", they definitely not giving it to normal squads but rather just insert it into the current flawed system where GPMG is relegated to the heavy weapons platoon with a tripod while grunts just use a SAW and cry for help from heavy guys when they need more punch.

despite fielding a machinegun with superior performance to existing GPMG they for some asinine reason decided to shoehorn an even bigger machinegun into the existing structure that exists only because of a lack of GPMG among regular squads. then there's the whole mess of XM250 not having quick change barrels for whatever reason, probably so that the command can gimp it further and justify their "MMG" fuckery.

>>64022465
>open or closed bolt firing

In the same gun?

>>64027177
it's not that unusual, a fair number of designs like that exist although i'm unaware of any that reached military service.

>>64027195
>not unusual

Serioulsy? What other gun has that feature? I was under the impression it was basically just Jim’s Sullivan’s ArmWest M4 and MGX.

>>64027245
i remember reading about a couple more prototypes like that which i can't recall but i was thinking about those two too

Wait does the US Mil use ELCAN Optics?

Looks like a C79 to me.

This picture confuses me. I thought this was a leaf.

>>64026756
Keep acting like the m240 can actually withstand 6.8mm pressures. The army looked into getting barrel swaps a while ago and it went nowhere, presumably exactly because the m240 couldn't handled 80000psi.

>>64027450
Sig's garbage rods can't handle it either. That's why they "adjusted" the loads down to around 70k psi.

>>64026756
The M250 having no quick change barrel absolutely baffles me

>>64027490
>Sig's garbage rods can't handle it either
They literally have a publicly stated barrel life of +10k rounds for the M7. Keep being disingenuous.

>>64027532
They also publicly stated the 320 can't go off without the trigger being pulled.

>>64027545
True. But I think the barrel life thing is much harder to lie about. You literally just need to do a burn down to definitively prove or disprove the assertion, which I know the army would have done during the selection phase. That was what made Textron bow out of the NGSW competition. They couldn't hack the reliability testing.

>>64027490
IIRC the pressure of the 6.8 was reduced because the acceleration didn’t play well with some idiosyncrasies with the bullet design. Something about the steel tip moving around relative to the rest of the bullet. I’m sure other anons know the details. But no, the M7 can totally handle 80kpsi. It’s an even beefier version of an AR10 lockup which is already overbuilt for 308

>>64027245
>What other gun has that feature?

It's unusual but they are some.

The LWRC IAR and the FN HAMR (a SCAR that switched automatically from closed to open bolt depending on chamber temperature). Both were proposed for the USMC IAR program.

More recently there was also the General Dynamics/True Velocity RM277 that was proposed for the NGSW program.

>>64027784
>… that switched automatically from closed to open bolt depending on chamber temperature

Fucking wild. Gonna read more about this now.

>>64027450
>Keep acting like the m240 can actually withstand 6.8mm pressures.
I am doing nothing of the sort. I never actually proposed that just rechambering the 240 would work even if with some special engineering it theoretically might.

>>64027278
It is, the US has been using them as a machine gun optic as the M145 for a couple decades now. It was odd seeing them on leaf M4's in Afghanistan for that reason as a burger. I personally hated them on a SAW or 240 because the eye relief always had to be just right to see anything and the lighting always seemed like it was shit.