US Army looking for lighter .50 machine gun

The U.S. Army and Special Operations Command are stepping up efforts to procure a lighter, modernized .50-caliber machine gun more easily transported than the standard 85-pound M2.

180px m2 24th meu US Army looking for lighter .50 machine gun photo

The goal is not to replace the M2, a combat fixture for 70 years, but to augment the inventory with a .50-caliber weapon that brings the same firepower at less than half the weight, Army officials said here at the Feb. 27-29 winter convention of the Association of the U.S. Army. Early models of the Light Weight .50-caliber (LW50) are expected to be delivered this year.

More info at Murdoc Online

Related Posts

10 Responses to “US Army looking for lighter .50 machine gun”

Sort The Responses Below: Most Recent | Highest Rated
  1. Antonwrote on March 15th, 2010 at 11:18 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Big dog with an M2 on would be awesome.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Sean Ingramwrote on December 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Some things are not meant to be “man portable”. Instead of making the gun lighter why not create a new vehicle to make the gun team more portable?

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. AK™wrote on May 05th, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Funny stuff.
    personally I would feel safer lugging around the M2 than a light version of the M2.

    The Army thought we didn’t need the M14/M21 anymore..too heavy or whatever..

    What we need are stronger soldiers to heft the guns around ;)

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Benwrote on May 02nd, 2009 at 6:42 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Vitor: clearly you’ve never spoken to someone who owns a 1911 then :D Thats Brownings designs for you.

    Tiger: the cost of a weapon made out of titanium would be pretty phonomenal. Some fabrication companies I’ve worked with in the past won’t deal with the stuff as its just too expensive to replace if a machinist makes a mistake.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. RJwrote on January 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    I know Vitor, it boggles my mind too. Stealth Technology? No problem. Lasers in space? No problem. Predicting the outcome of nuclear explosions with mathematics and supercomputers? Yawn.

    But a new rifle or machine-gun invented 100+ years ago?

    IMPOSSIBLE. TOO COMPLEX.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Vitorwrote on January 06th, 2009 at 5:39 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Making a lighter gun than the M2 is no rocket science. The russians and chinese already did that decades ago. Why? Cause the M2 is was designed almost 90 years ago!! Although a very a good design, it baffles me that american companies have a hard time to surpass something made 90 years ago.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Jcamelowrote on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Sounds like what they need is an XM312 .50 cal.

    they are way lighter and more portable.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Tigerwrote on July 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not change the material? Instead of a new gun, build a M2 out of Titanium or Scandium with a Carbon fiber barrel?

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  9. Stevewrote on March 07th, 2008 at 2:51 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    I read that the problem with the XM312 was the slow rate of fire (260 rounds/min), half the rate of the M2.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  10. Daverinowrote on March 07th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Sounds like the XM312 would be good fit. If they haven’t canceled the program that is.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  1. Benwrote on May 02nd, 2009 at 6:42 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Vitor: clearly you’ve never spoken to someone who owns a 1911 then :D Thats Brownings designs for you.

    Tiger: the cost of a weapon made out of titanium would be pretty phonomenal. Some fabrication companies I’ve worked with in the past won’t deal with the stuff as its just too expensive to replace if a machinist makes a mistake.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. AK™wrote on May 05th, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Funny stuff.
    personally I would feel safer lugging around the M2 than a light version of the M2.

    The Army thought we didn’t need the M14/M21 anymore..too heavy or whatever..

    What we need are stronger soldiers to heft the guns around ;)

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Sean Ingramwrote on December 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Some things are not meant to be “man portable”. Instead of making the gun lighter why not create a new vehicle to make the gun team more portable?

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Antonwrote on March 15th, 2010 at 11:18 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Big dog with an M2 on would be awesome.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. RJwrote on January 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    I know Vitor, it boggles my mind too. Stealth Technology? No problem. Lasers in space? No problem. Predicting the outcome of nuclear explosions with mathematics and supercomputers? Yawn.

    But a new rifle or machine-gun invented 100+ years ago?

    IMPOSSIBLE. TOO COMPLEX.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Vitorwrote on January 06th, 2009 at 5:39 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Making a lighter gun than the M2 is no rocket science. The russians and chinese already did that decades ago. Why? Cause the M2 is was designed almost 90 years ago!! Although a very a good design, it baffles me that american companies have a hard time to surpass something made 90 years ago.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Stevewrote on March 07th, 2008 at 2:51 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    I read that the problem with the XM312 was the slow rate of fire (260 rounds/min), half the rate of the M2.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Tigerwrote on July 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not change the material? Instead of a new gun, build a M2 out of Titanium or Scandium with a Carbon fiber barrel?

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  9. Jcamelowrote on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Sounds like what they need is an XM312 .50 cal.

    they are way lighter and more portable.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  10. Daverinowrote on March 07th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link To Comment | Reply To Comment

    Sounds like the XM312 would be good fit. If they haven’t canceled the program that is.

    Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment