Tactical Tailor

AUSA 18 – 6.5 CM LAMG by Knight’s Armament Co

EA094AFD-7EE6-4254-A569-9BA6B1139CB1

Knight’s Armament Co displayed a 6.5 CM version of their Lightweight Assault Machine Gun. USSOCOM adopted 6.5 CM earlier this year. The weight difference from the 5.56 variant which is about 9 lbs is around 12 lbs for the 6.5 CM. It is capable of delivering 550 RPM.

020E3AB2-DEA2-428C-A4D9-C90B9BEF648F

Tags:

16 Responses to “AUSA 18 – 6.5 CM LAMG by Knight’s Armament Co”

  1. Easy e says:

    More like no rounds per minute, they don’t have those cartridges aren’t primed! /sarcasm

    Looks like a nice reduction. I’m curious what the move towards 6.5 will do to ammo prices over the next few years.

  2. Dave says:

    I bet this isn’t even on Big Army’s radar. Too bad, too.

    • Hodge175 says:

      I agree, the Big Army idea of weight reduction is at the most 2 to 3 lbs. We will have to spend millions of more dollars on prototypes that amount to nothing for our soldiers.

      • Bill says:

        I’m not sure how a 21 lb (9+12) 6.5 mg is drastically lighter than a 240L, other than ammo weight.

        • mark says:

          The 5.56 LMG is 9lbs, the 6.5 LMG is 12lbs.

          So at 12lb, its much lighter then the M240; in fact, its 5lbs lighter then the M249.

          • Bill says:

            If it’s 12lb that’s great. I read the sentence as it being 12 lb heavier than the 9lb 5.56 version.

        • Evst. Palaiologos says:

          The way I understood it was that the 6,5 weighs 12lb. Which is impressive if true.
          The sentence is bit confusing, but I hope my take is right and the author didn’t mean that the 6,5 MG is 12lb heavier than the 5,56 (which doesn’t make sense anyway)

  3. some other joe says:

    For those who’ve used it….

    Putting the trigger and sear almost under the belt (retro M60 style) looks great for dropping weight through conserving overall length. Does sticking a carbine tube and stock on the back end reduce that benefit (over putting a buttpad on the end of the receiver, again M60 style)? Does it make length of pull unmanageable?

    • Pete says:

      That M60 style cheekweld to receiver is exactly how they do it on the 5.56 LAMG, the 7.62 model adds the AR buffer tube that this one has. I’m guessing the extra spring/buffer travel is required to maintain the “constant recoil” operation of the weapon with the extra recoil impulse of 7.62 and 6.5CM.

      Also, yes, that sentence is confusing. However, the 5.56 model is 8.6lbs, the 7.62 model is 13.25lbs, so I’m guessing this 6.5CM model is 12 lbs, not 21lbs.

  4. joglee says:

    Who needs this when we can all chase the NGSW.

    • SSD says:

      USSOCOM

      • Hodge175 says:

        Lucky them, there is that one weapon that SOCCOM has been using since I saw 90mm recoiless rifle replaced. I believe its nickname is the “Goose”.

        I only took 2 decades for the Big Army to see a need for it.

  5. Dave says:

    I find it interesting that they chose to use what appears to be an upsized M27 link rather than a modified M13.

  6. Mark says:

    Wouldn’t barrel life be a problem w/ this weapon system compared to 308?