General Dynamics Lightweight Medium Machine Gun (LWMMG)
General Dynamics Unveils New Medium-caliber Machine Gun at Joint Armaments Conference in Seattle
Lightweight Medium Machine Gun (LWMMG) will be on display May 15 – 17.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), today unveiled a next-generation Lightweight Medium Machine Gun (LWMMG) at the Joint Armaments Conference in Seattle, Wash.
Identifying an unmet warfighter need, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products conducted its own research and development program to develop the LWMMG in just over one year. The weapon is designed for low-cost production and for maximum effectiveness at the small unit level, where weight and lethality are decisive factors.
“The LWMMG is an affordable weapon that closes a current operational gap, providing .50 caliber-like firepower in range and effect at the same weight and size of currently fielded 7.62mm machine guns,” said Steve Elgin, vice president and general manager of armament systems for General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products. “Weighing in at 24 pounds and featuring a fully collapsible stock, the LWMMG offers superior mobility and portability in both mounted and dismounted operations.”
General Dynamics’ LWMMG also offers a distinct advantage in both extended and close-in fighting by using the highly efficient .338 Norma Magnum cartridge for increased accuracy and lethality out to 1,700 meters, a distance currently gapped in the operational capabilities of warfighters.
“By employing the larger .338 NM round, the LWMMG delivers twice the range and dramatically increases lethality above the 7.62 round,” said Elgin. “In addition, the LWMMG goes beyond providing suppressive fire and gives warfighters the ability to attack point targets at significantly extended ranges.”
The LWMMG has a firing rate of 500 rounds per minute, a maximum range of 5,642 meters, and is equipped with quick-change barrel technology. In addition to use by dismounted infantry and on ground vehicles, the weapon can be used as the armament system aboard helicopters and littoral craft, providing greater range and effectiveness for those platforms.
“The LWMMG is a well-designed machine gun ideally suited to provide long-range lethality to U.S. and allied forces,” Elgin said.
For more information regarding the LWMMG, visit the General Dynamics exhibit at the Joint Armaments Conference (booth 204, Exhibit Hall, Washington State Convention Center) or visit http://www.gdatp.com/jacefd.
http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/...eID_1811=17733
I've expected this for quite some time
Weapon itself is interesting, but the article sucks. I just shudder when I see things like "quick change barrel technology" or weapon having a "maximum range of 5,642 meters".
Since when quick change barrels required technology? I thought they used a latch, switch, whatever, but not technology. This must have happened when someone figured out we should call rifles weapon platforms, instead of just calling them rifles (which would describe the weapon platform in question rather accurately).
Then, what the **** does maximum range of 5642 meters mean? If the enemy is standing at 5643m I can't hit it (and vice versa at 5641m I can)? Maximum range of this gun is actually two times greater than the longest actual kill with the caliber in question shot with a sniper rifle with excellent accuracy and proper magnified optics. But here we have a machinegun capable of putting hurt twice as far (probably with iron sights, too).
Sorry, rant out, I just had express my hatred to go on living...
So no soldiers anymore just warfighters? to add to Jippo's hate
At least they didn't say it was a "game changer".Originally Posted by Jippo
In the US we refer to maximum range as how far the bullet can go, while maximum effective range is the distance at which one may reliably engage targets. As an example, with the M16, the maximum range is 3600 meters, but the maximum effective range against a point target (a person) is only 550.
Sure, my .22LR has maximum range of 2,5km (or 2500 meters, says so on the box) but that figure says absolutely nothing to me. It is absolutely useless information given the fact that I know bullets can go far far away hit stuff and hurt people. But really what does it tell us about the weapon in question? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Nobody is going to judge M16 based on the fact that it has maximum range of 3600m. It is useless information, not worth printing.
And why exactly, to the point 5642 meters? Why not 5641 meters or even "over 5,5km"? What if I shoot downhill? What if the temperature is 30*C? Does the bullet stop mid air at 5642m and drop to the ground? Or was that just a figure not related to the real world engineer got out of spreadsheet? Effective range would be interesting, this is fluff, yadda-yadda, etc...
Am I supposed to be impressed?
I mean T-72 tank could be used as an indirect asset for over 7km distances and it even had an aiming device for that use. Nobody cared because it would have made a ****ty artillery piece, it was not relevant to anyone that it could lob HE shells over 7km. Everyone was interested if it could hit from 2,5km though. That was relevant information, 7km lucky hits were not.
If someone bothers to write an article he/she might as well spend the time writing useful information instead of meaningless figures that only impress call of duty -generation without any understanding of the numbers in real world context.
Everybody likes more range and better terminal ballistics, but I would sure hate to be the poor grunt that had to hump that b1tch and its ammo up and down the mountains of a place like Afghanistan.
Damn, beat me to it. I was thinking how much is the ammo going to weigh carrying that around...
That's what 3.5 statute miles translates to in metric.
I don't disagree with you at all, I just thought that there might have been a language or nationality barrier in the interpretation of the article. This MG is a solution in search of a problem.
I´m sure it will be useful in the Afghanistan terrain, although I guess the regular troops won´t get it before the final pullout.
Any reason why an obscure round is used, instead of say... Lapua Magnum, which is already in use there?
It does not just have more range. It also has more penetration and terminal energy against tougher targets. A machine gun nearly the same weight as the M240 with the kind of power this beast has; that is useful anywhere. It ought to shred the fvck out of trucks, buildings, walls, even some bunkers. And the enemy might have a chicken plate in their vest rated to stop 7.62mm AP, but if it gets hit by a 300 grain .338 round, it will not matter. Even if it does not penetrate the plate, blunt force trauma from a round with that much energy will very likely cause broken ribs, bruised internal organs, and all kinds of other ugly stuff that adds up to him being totally out of the fight, if not dead.
----------Any reason why an obscure round is used, instead of say... Lapua Magnum, which is already in use there?----------http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ine-gun-lwmmg/
Excerpt:
The .338 Norma Magnum's performance is very similar to that of the much more popular .338 Lapua Magnum. The .338 NM has a slight advantage in that when loaded with a .300 grain Sierra HPBT MatchKing projectile, its overall length is shorter than the .338 LM loaded with the same bullet. This is why General Dynamics would have chosen this round over the more popular .338 LM.
So GD had a contract to develop a lightweight .50 caliber machine gun. Is this what they intended to field instead, or is the light .50 MG project going forward as well?
Another interesting question is, if the Army adopts .338 Norma Magnum as a standard MG caliber, will we start seeing sniper rifles in .338 NM for ammo commonality on U.S. Army sniper teams (and perhaps later U.S. Marine sniper teams as well, if they also adopt the .338 NM MGM)? I would love to see both services getting the AI bolt gun that the Brits use in .338 NM, and maybe even a Barrett in the same caliber as well.
Last edited by Ought Six; 05-17-2012 at 01:22 AM.
Yeah, good call. We do use maximum ranges here as well, but the only thing they are used for is determining danger areas for live fires.
Last edited by Jippo; 05-17-2012 at 05:22 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
