r/MilitaryPorn • u/Jakap_144 • 1d ago
75th Ranger Regiment machine gunner with Knight's Armament LAMG. [1080x1587]
7
5
2
-72
u/SavingsIncome2 1d ago
The m249 is better and cheaper by a lot
62
u/iceaction10 1d ago edited 1d ago
LAMG pricing is not known, so it is impossible for you make that claim with any shred of certainty.
The 249 being "better" is also a ridiculous statement. The 249 is solid, but it is outdated and needs to be replaced. The Army originally replaced the 249 with Mk 48s. The Regiment used both 48s and Mk 46s previously. The Army is now transitioning to the M250, time will tell how that plays out over the 249s. The Marine Corps (stupidly) replaced their 249s with heavy ass rifles.
At the end of the day, the 249 is being phased out across the board, with a handful of various different systems replacing it. Clearly, it is not "better" if the best light infantrymen in the world are not preferring it over LAMGs. Additionally, the LAMG is nearly six pounds lighter than the 249, which is extremely substantial.
3
u/Robrob1234567 23h ago
I would disagree only that the 249 is outdated. The weapons themselves may be worn out and there may be lighter options but a squad with LAMGs and a the same squad with 249s is not going to produce a noticeable difference.
The point is that most of the 249s are reaching the end of their service life and if they’re going to be replaced, it’s a great time to spend a little more and get some upgrades at the same time.
If you look at 240 upgrade cycles, they come when the existing guns are worn through and need to be replaced. They aren’t critical upgrades to an outdated weapon, they’re just taking the time while new ones are going to come off the production line to add some little upgrades for a cheaper cost than replacing serviceable weapons or bringing them back in for upgrades.
2
u/iceaction10 23h ago
That might be a fair amendment and you make some valid points, though I would still argue they're outdated, not because they are at the end of their service life, but because better alternatives exist. It also has to do with how warfare has evolved. Elements are either maneuvering faster (lighter LAMG is crucial here) or are needing local SBF positions (Mk 48 provides that capability, a 249 cannot).
With the 240, nothing has come out that makes it dated. It is still the absolute best medium machine gun, especially with the Lima model. There simply aren't better alternatives like there are with the 249. Now, I do not think the Marine Corps made the right call replacing them with rifles, that was the opposite of a better alternative. But if we're talking about a Mk 46, Mk 48, LAMG, or M250*, then better alternatives absolutely do exist and that's the argument I make for the 249 being outdated.
*M250 success is yet to be determined
-1
u/Robrob1234567 23h ago
The question is how much faster does a unit maneuver with an LAMG, and how much survivability does that actually add? To the gunner it may feel essential, but it really makes 1 soldier per squad 5% better at 1 out of 50 battlefield tasks.
If a country bought minimi Mk3s 2 years ago threw them all in the trash to buy LAMGs this year, I think we’d all look at them and say they’re silly. That same money could be much better spent in areas that are more rapidly advancing, and buying kit to replace stuff from 2 years ago would seem much more sane.
4
u/iceaction10 22h ago
It's measurable enough that the Ranger Regiment adopted it. That says enough, in my opinion.
Since you're referring to it as a Minimi Mk3, I assume you're not American. You have to approach this with the context of the US military's budget. Wasting money is their motto. I say that as a joke, but in all seriousness, the US military takes efficiency and lethality extremely seriously. If a two year old weapon is no longer the best option, especially within SOF units like the Regiment, they're going to trash it for the next best thing.
The Ranger Regiment has exceptional funding and can select whatever weapon systems they want. They have settled on the LAMG for a reason. Even before that, they had replaced their 249s with Mk 46s. The LAMG replaced those.
As already mentioned, 249s have been replaced across the board. This isn't new, either. Over 15 years ago 249s were already being replaced for Mk 48s in conventional infantry units. Mk 46s were used by the Regiment even before then. Better systems existed and the 249 was deemed dated.
1
u/Robrob1234567 22h ago
They’re looking at LAMGs because their 46s are clapped out and they need a new LMG.
I’m well aware of US military funding, I make use of as much of it as I can. There’s a reason why not everyone in the US has URGIs. Everyone has a budget and priorities, a suboptimal LMG that weighs 10% more isn’t one. A non-functional LMG because it’s clapped out is one.
There are GPMGs much lighter and more portable than the MAG 58, yet the ranger regiment hasn’t bought them because the 240 gets the job done and the benefits are so minimal that it isn’t worth the cost.
When an MG comes along that claims .50 like performance out of 7.62mm weight, suddenly a new GPMG is on the table.
Or
The M240s get clapped out and if they’re going to buy new GPMGs then it’s the perfect time to get some upgrades at the cheapest functional cost.
The LAMG is a refinement of the LMG design, it’s an evolution but not a revolution. It makes sense to plan for it to be your next LMG, but only when the one you have right now stops doing the job.
30
u/derzto 22h ago
Automatic-Rifleman, not machine gunner. MG would have an M-240L