testtest

The Army is replacing the M240 machine gun. Here’s what could come next

Talyn

Talyn

SAINT
Founding Member
After nearly 50 years in service, the Army is exploring options to replace the M240 machine gun. From .338 Norma Magnum overmatch to lightweight 7.62 alternatives, here’s what could come next.

This effort is still in its earliest stages, and there’s no official program of record yet. But buried in the Army’s fiscal year 2026 budget request is a clear signal: the service is preparing for what it’s calling the Future Medium Machine Gun, or FMMG.

taskandpurpose.com

The Army is replacing the M240 machine gun. Here's what could come next

The Army is laying the groundwork to replace the M240 machine gun after decades of service. Here’s what we know about what's next.
taskandpurpose.com taskandpurpose.com

1756329435208.png
 
Events over seas concluded the 7.62x51 & 5.56 were out-ranged by opponents, thus the moves to eliminate that problem.

Both are still useful in locales where shorter ranges are the norm.
 
the use of 300gr projectiles is the worse idea ever at those velocities (2,600+). drop is horrendous, but energy isn't bad. using 250-270gr would be the better options! energy at 1,500 would still be plenty on soft targets as for harder targets a different projectile makeup/design would be needed.
 
HansGruber said:
But was the .308 an improvement on the .30-06?

Was 5.56 an improvement?
Click to expand...
Hans you know all this already. :rolleyes:

But I'm doing this for the newbies.

#1 - Yes, because its shorter cartridge allows for smaller, lighter rifles with shorter actions, which improves handling and magazine capacity. While maintaining comparable ballistic performance, the .308's reduced size and weight enable soldiers to carry more ammunition and create more compact weapon systems, making it more practical for modern infantry and civilian hunters.

Military Advantages
  • Compact and Lighter Rifles:
    The shorter .308 case allowed for the development of shorter-action rifles, which are lighter and more compact than their long-action .30-06 predecessors.

  • Increased Magazine Capacity:
    The shorter cartridge length meant that rifles could be designed with larger-capacity magazines, which is a significant advantage in combat.

  • More Ammunition for Soldiers:
    The lighter weight of the cartridge meant soldiers could carry more ammunition, increasing their effectiveness on the battlefield.
#2 - Same as above... shorter cartridge allows for smaller, lighter rifles with shorter actions, which improves handling and magazine capacity.
  • Ammunition Weight and Quantity:
    Soldiers could carry significantly more 5.56mm rounds than .308 rounds for the same weight, increasing overall firepower in the field.

  • Reduced Recoil:
    The smaller, lighter 5.56mm round produces less felt recoil, allowing soldiers to achieve better accuracy and faster follow-up shots, especially in automatic or rapid semi-automatic fire.

  • Effectiveness at Combat Ranges:
    The military determined that the energy of the 5.56mm round was sufficient for the typical engagement distances encountered in modern warfare at the time, making it more practical for the standard infantry role.

  • Smaller, Lighter Weapons:
    The 5.56mm cartridge was developed alongside the AR-15, later the M16 rifle, leading to significantly lighter and more maneuverable weapons compared to their predecessors, which used heavier cartridges like the .308.

Change is a constant....
 
Talyn said:
Hans you know all this already. :rolleyes:

But I'm doing this for the newbies.

#1 - Yes, because its shorter cartridge allows for smaller, lighter rifles with shorter actions, which improves handling and magazine capacity. While maintaining comparable ballistic performance, the .308's reduced size and weight enable soldiers to carry more ammunition and create more compact weapon systems, making it more practical for modern infantry and civilian hunters.

Military Advantages
  • Compact and Lighter Rifles:
    The shorter .308 case allowed for the development of shorter-action rifles, which are lighter and more compact than their long-action .30-06 predecessors.

  • Increased Magazine Capacity:
    The shorter cartridge length meant that rifles could be designed with larger-capacity magazines, which is a significant advantage in combat.

  • More Ammunition for Soldiers:
    The lighter weight of the cartridge meant soldiers could carry more ammunition, increasing their effectiveness on the battlefield.
#2 - Same as above... shorter cartridge allows for smaller, lighter rifles with shorter actions, which improves handling and magazine capacity.
  • Ammunition Weight and Quantity:
    Soldiers could carry significantly more 5.56mm rounds than .308 rounds for the same weight, increasing overall firepower in the field.

  • Reduced Recoil:
    The smaller, lighter 5.56mm round produces less felt recoil, allowing soldiers to achieve better accuracy and faster follow-up shots, especially in automatic or rapid semi-automatic fire.

  • Effectiveness at Combat Ranges:
    The military determined that the energy of the 5.56mm round was sufficient for the typical engagement distances encountered in modern warfare at the time, making it more practical for the standard infantry role.

  • Smaller, Lighter Weapons:
    The 5.56mm cartridge was developed alongside the AR-15, later the M16 rifle, leading to significantly lighter and more maneuverable weapons compared to their predecessors, which used heavier cartridges like the .308.

Change is a constant....
Click to expand...

Yet it seems they’re moving in the opposite direction, no?

A bigger, heavier cartridge, requiring a bigger, heavier action…

Or so it would appear.
 
HansGruber said:
Yet it seems they’re moving in the opposite direction, no?

A bigger, heavier cartridge, requiring a bigger, heavier action…

Or so it would appear.
Click to expand...
IMO, no. Since they're responding to the threat levels.

The 5.56 still has a role & will be around for a log time in service in other capacities , sort of like the WW2/Korean .30 carbine. Plus, the 5.56 is well-suited for some operational areas, and not for others.

Nuff said.
 
and who ever said the military make good decisions! all 5 areas of the military have their own ideas of what they want and don't want what the others have. gotta be different and the cg doesn't quite have the selection as the big 4 have. just like the 6.8spc and 30ar.
 
While I get the need for having a GPMG with more USP than the 240 but less than a 50 cal M2/3 where the pentagon goes wrong is the all or nothing.

The 240 and 7.62 is so deep in inventory and is quite effective for 85-90% of what’s going on.

So maybe the Military should look at the 338 MG as an option or say be deployed just to the areas where the range might exceed what the 7.62

That whole mission drives the gear!!!! But maybe it’s just me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top