United States Special Operations Command’s Lightweight Machine Gun-Assault (LMG-A) requirement has been on the books for years but kept getting pushed to the right.
Last week, they announced an industry day to be held 19-20 November 2024, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm EST at the SOFWERX Facility in Tampa, Florida.
We have shared a photo of the Knights Armament Co Lightweight Assault Machine Gun chambered in 5.56 NATO because it has been procured in limited numbers by USSOCOM and is similar in size to what they are seeking.
To be clear, this is still NOT a solicitation for proposals, proposal abstracts, or quotations. Instead, they want gather market information to assist the Government in forming future acquisition strategy or methods.
Specifically, they are seeking input from industry to further refine the Government requirements documentation, Performance Specification (P-Spec), as well as identify the marketplace for interested vendors for the Lightweight Machine Gun-Assault (LMG-A) under NAICS Code 332994, Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing. USSOCOM is only seeking input from manufacturers, not distributors.
The LMG-A is intended to replace the legacy MK48 for a lightweight assault machine gun.
The LMG-A shall be a lightweight belt fed, multi-caliber system which will include a primary barrel, spare barrel, with required bolts, barrels, and operating groups for each caliber, buttstock, receiver, sound/signature suppressor, operator manual, cleaning kit, operator tool kit, maintainer tool kit, spare parts kit, training munition kit, bipod, backup iron sights, sling, and a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved locking hard carrying case capable of storing a fully accessorized weapon.
The LMG-A will extend the range of suppressive fire capability out to 1500m. The LMG-A shall be accurate to 6.0 MOA (T) / 3.0 MOA (O) at 100 yards firing 7.62mm NATO ammunition and USSOCOM TDP 6.5CM ammunition. USSOCOM is also interested the capability of the LMG-A to adopt other calibers such as 6.8x51mm high pressure ammunition (U.S. Army TDP) and the .264 Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (.264 LICC) via caliber conversion kits.
SOCOM has been interacting with industry for years discussing a 6.5 CM gun. During SHOT Show, 7.62 NATO entered the picture. I asked someone in industry why and was told that the answer is that there’s loads of 7.62 ammo available. (Naturally, I immediately said, “.276 Pederson.”) Word is that the 6.5CM ammo programs aren’t progressing very quickly, so like with 300 BLK on RASR, they’re moving forward with an ammo supply they can rely on.
They are shooting for a gun which weighs, at its heaviest, 17 lbs. At that weight, it’s just a pound lighter than the Mk48 it’s replacing. The new gun has to handle 6.5CM which isn’t an issue but those other calibers could be tough for some guns, especially as you get down to the objective weight of 12.75 lbs which is around what the developmental model of the KAC LAMG in 6.5CM weighs.
The command has publicly released these additional requirements:
Operation and Performance characteristics
a) The LMG-A shall be capable of firing in fully automatic and semi-automatic firing modes.
b) The LMG-A shall have an ambidextrous safety selector that prevents the weapon from being fired when the trigger is depressed and the weapon is on SAFE (T), capable of charging the weapon when the weapon is on SAFE (O).
c) The LMG-A shall be capable of firing 7.62x51mm NATO family of belted ammunition to include training munitions, and USSOCOM TDP 6.5 Creedmoor belted ammunition via left-hand feed.
d) The LMG-A shall have AMR not to exceed 6.0 MOA (T), 3.0 MOA (O) at 100 meters (109 yards) when firing 7.62 NATO ammunition.
e) The LMG-A shall be equipped with quick-change barrels in assault and standard configurations.
f) The LMG-A shall be capable of being suppressed, while reducing the signature of the weapon in flash, ground disturbance, sound, and gas blowback. The suppressor shall not modify the rate of fire by more than 10% (T) or 2% (O).
g) The LMG-A suppressor shall be of a quick-detach, lockable design, and minimize Point of Aim/Point of Impact shift when mounted or dismounted.
h) The LMG-A shall have a two-position, non-reciprocating charging handle that is operable and moveable to both the left and right-hand side of the weapon.
i) The LMG-A shall have a user-adjustable bipod that is rapidly deployable/stowable and provides tension and lockup upon loading.
j) The LMG-A buttstock shall have an adjustable for length (T), collapsable (T) side folding (O), and adjustable cheek riser (O) that does not interfere with the function of the weapon.
k) The LMG-A shall have a maximum overall length with bipod attached, buttstock, and barrel (with suppressor) of 49.0 inches (T) less than or equal to 44.0 inches (O). Sights and other accessories will not be included in the weight requirement.
l) The LMG-A shall weigh no more than 17.0lbs (T), 12.75lbs (O).
m) The LMG-A shall have Mil-STD-1913 rails, with numbered slots at the 12 o’clock position with a minimum of 8.50 inches aft of the feed tray cover for optical sights.
n) LMG-A shall have M-LOK attachment points at the 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions on the forward handguard to support the attachment of accessories and enablers.
o) The LMG-A shall have a rate of fire between 500-750 rounds per minute (T=O).
p) The LMG-A shall minimize felt recoil across all firing modes.
q) The LMG-A shall have a single mounting point for DoD-common weapons mounts.
r) the LMG-A shall have a mounting point for common ammunition carrying boxes or soft pouches.
I have seen these in use with the 75th, wonder what their feedback on the Knights machine gun has been.
Noted the reference to LICC. My humble and unsolicited opinion says that FN produced LICC rifle is better suited to a mass issue, individual weapon than the XM7. The 6.8 round is well suited just fine for DMR and crew-served roles, no problem with it there at all.
Have you fired both rifles?
Have you? If you have some insight for us, don’t hold back.
Yes, I’ve written about them extensively.
Eric has.
For reference – here’s the original SSD article about the LICC: https://soldiersystems.net/2023/01/16/the-fn-america-fna-previews-the-lightweight-intermediate-caliber-cartridge-licc-individual-weapon-system-iws-developed-for-the-irregular-warfare-technology-support-directorate-iwtsd/
Now, I have no experience behind the trigger on either of these platforms, but looking at the broader canvas I have to say that I lean in the same direction as DSM above. The 6.5×43 platforms do sound on paper like a nicer option than the 6.8×51 of the NGSW – and the rifle + ammo combo look lighter to carry and handier to use as well.
But conracts is contracts, and the NGSW train has already left the station…
No sir, have not. I based my humble and unsolicited opinion almost entirely on the LICC and XM7 coverage here actually. LICC is capable of picking up improvements in ammunition that the NGSW/XM7 has brought to be with less of a weight and size penalty. The XM7 has controls similar to an M4 for ease of training and transition to the new weapon, and indeed LICC does as well, but once again personal opinion, I’d pick LICC solely becasue it puts the bolt catch/release in the “right” spot not unlike the ACR or XCR. It would lose some distance in its ability to defeat body armor to which I would ask what does the data say on rifleman engagement distances and where exactly are we planning to fight?
I also wholly and freely admit to my ability to make non-binding decisions based on not knowing the full story of either weapon.
Let me quantify that, when in comparison of the controls between both weapons I’d go with the LICC because it does offer that specific feature.
Indeed, the XM7 and its full bore 6.8mm is here and established itself as the future. Barring some major budgetary/safety issues, maybe even foreign partner concerns over standardization, it’s here to stay. I accept that no problem and it doesn’t matter if I do or not. I still think it’s just too much gun for what is needed.
I get the legacy argument for 7.62 NATO, and the cross-functional compatibility argument for the new 6.8×51 – and I understand that SOCOM has been / is also quite interested in 6.5CM, and that .264 LICC provides an interesting intermediate option to 5.56 or7.62 NATO….
But does it really make logistical sense to pursue any options that are neither US Army nor NATO standard? And as its SOCOM, what about the possibility that they might be in a situation where it might make more sense to be able to fire 7.62×39 and 7.62×54mmR ammunition?
Just speaking as a former ground pounder who’s also seen an awful lot of other interesting concepts end up on Forgotten Weapons…
6.5 CM makes logistical sense because of the large commercial following the round has. It does have a range advantage over 7.62×51 and that appears to be the driving force behind quite a bit of current Western cartridge development.
Making your NATO firearm in 54r telegraphs your intent, isn’t wise for that reason among others (consider Op. Eldest Son). Not to mention the design considerations that a rimmed MG cartridge must have. Your feed system probably won’t work if you swap to a non-rimmed cartridge.
x39 doesn’t offer anything over 300blk or 556, IMO. I’m aware of only a couple of solicitations for x39 guns and they seem to have evaporated with the surge of .300.
6.5LICC is pretty cool but probably vaporware.
The program itself is pretty interesting, but the requirements seem a little much. I forsee many interesting submissions that end up mostly on Ian’s desk as yet another, “what if”.
Thank you Sir.
The 6.5 CR vs. 6.5 NGSW is an interesting question… IIRC, the initial NGSW request only stipulated a 6.5mm bullet, and left the rest up to industry to propose. So I wonder why 6.5 CR wasn’t in there. Or was it, and my old brain is just being foggy…
And yeah, I also hear ya on the Russkie ammo issue – kind of only threw that in as a wild card really. But there are still a lot of places in the world that use those.
Interesting times we live in…
It’s a 6.8 projectile and they had to send it down range at a certain velocity. Creedmoor is underpowered at ranges past 600m.
Ah what .3mm between friends? 😉
But yes, got my nomenclatures mixed up. Thanks for clarifying.
Yep that is accurate. they already had the bullet spec’d out, down to the weight & composition, said it had to go ” N ” fast. Forget the exact mv # but I vaguely remember north of 3000 FPS.
Even if it was a 6.5mm projectile, or you resized the case to 6.8cm, that’s pushing it for the case capacity* of 6.XCM at 130gr+ weights.
*at reasonable barrel lengths.