I think the SIG should win this one because their MG propably has more than one way to fire it, which means it is more "modular" and doesn't need more testing. This will result in the army having more money for the other new guns like the reliable P320 from SIG and the new incredibly necessary battle rifle M7 also from SIG.
3 weeks ago | 462
Keep the M240, use the saved procurement funds to clone 1300 Justins. Best wishes from the UK to everyone here.
3 weeks ago | 146
Sig should be completely kicked out from further US military bids after the pistol and rifle fiascos.
3 weeks ago | 258
REAPR’s got the cool name, but lacks a recoil mitigation feature like the other two, which is essential for a round with this much recoil. If you watch clips of the REAPR being fired, it looks uncomfortable. I’m personally rooting for True Velocity’s entry because it is GD’s LWMMG, the OG version of this concept. After SOCOM showed interest, Sig poached the engineers that worked on the project and not long thereafter unveiled the MG338, which had an oddly familiar recoil mitigation system. I guess it was just convergent evolution./s It’s definitely not good for Sig to have a complete monopoly on our small arms though, so the Army should go with True Velocity’s gun or the REAPR.
3 weeks ago (edited) | 42
I remember when my unit got the 240L. The reduction in weight was really noticeable. That said, no I don't think it needs a replacement. I wonder if your video will change my opinion.
3 weeks ago | 50
Flamethrower. Nothing supports a platoon like a wall of screaming flame.
3 weeks ago | 66
None of the above. I'm a little sick of the taxpayers getting taken for a $1 Billion dollar ride per toy for a new pistol (does not work) or a new combat rifle (odd caliber and the new 5.56 rounds are almost as good and certainly cheaper), a replacement for the Humvee (a glorified dune buggy). I support the soldiers, sailors, and marines but as a taxpayer am very tired of being treated like a rube by the DoD.
3 weeks ago | 39
I'm gonna go with "None of the Above". The Army seems to have done a poor job at fielding new small arms platforms. Until the Army can improve its ability to effectively acquire new weapon systems, I see no reason to replace something as solid as the M240.
3 weeks ago | 36
M60A4... I was both an M60 and an M240B gunner. Much better prefer the M60. They tried to tell us that the M240 was lighter and more compact. It wasn't.
3 weeks ago | 14
As someone with no experience in this field, the coolest looking one is the obvious answer
3 weeks ago | 15
It's between the REAPR or True Velocity. SIG destroyed my trust with their rifles and pistols.
3 weeks ago | 6
One thing we are all aware of is that nobody gives more bangs for the buck than SIG.
3 weeks ago | 26
It seems that you are choosing a new machinegun. Would you like help? Imo, none. The .338 is stupidly overpowered against live force. It's size limits ammo capacity meaning less suppression time and or slower fire rate meaning less effective supression. Generates a lot of heat and wear and tear. It's incompatible with NATO standarts. It'll make a mess in supply chain. Keep M240 and M249 for infantry use. That Temu kevlar ain't shii. Use the money for RND to make them lighter and procure more of them. For everything else there's M2. Oh. Wait a sec. SIG just sent me Quality SIG MMG all the way! M7 is the best rifle in the world! Two P320s for everyone!
3 weeks ago (edited) | 5
I have learned LOONNGG Ago, that new doesn't mean better, it just means they found a LOWER BIDDER!
3 weeks ago | 19
OOW REAPER looks fantastic but I woudn´t mind the RM338 since it is a m240 just longer and has a recoil operated system (correct me if I am wrong ).
3 weeks ago | 2
Justin Taylor
The Army is eyeballing replacements for the M240 machine gun. Currently three are already on the market and more are expected to pop up. Do we actually need to replace this though? Which of the three would you prefer?
New video out now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhdU...
3 weeks ago | [YT] | 406