"Congress Calls for M240 Machine Gun Modernization" Topic

"The House Armed Services Committee called for the Army to devise modernization plans for the M240 7.62mm medium machine gun as lawmakers noted that inventory is "aging significantly."

The asked for $1.4 USD million for M240 modifications and the House Armed Services Committee granted it in their markup of the 2016 defense budget. But the committee wants the Army to do more to ensure the machine gun's sustainment.

Lawmakers requested that Army Secretary John McHugh brief the committee by March 1, 2016 on the Army's long term sustainment strategy and life-cycle sustainment plans for the machine gun…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Aging M240?- while the M240 was designed in the 70's it wasn't deployed in the current infantry LMG role until the late 90's – hell the M60 I carried in 84 was older than I was – the M60 was introduced in 57 & soldiered on until the late 90s with no mods for the most part – sounds like lobbyists have been at it again/still

Actually the M240 is a variant of the MAG 58 by Fabrique National of Belgium. Design dates from the late forties and early fifties with production beginning in the late fifties.

The US only adopted it in the early eighties as a coaxial mg for armoured vehicles and later as a replacement for the 'pig' in the late '80s and early '90s.

It is actually from the same design era as the 'pig'.

I don't suspect that the state of the US small arms inventory has any problem due to age. It is that the problems stem from the amount of use the weapons have seen in the last fifteen years.

Yep, all my Mech Company's M60s in '87-'89, were re-builts/refurbished. They jammed all the time …

Is there something "wrong" with it that requires it to be "updated". The M1909 pistol was updated because those who used pistols wanted more rounds in the magazine. They are now looking into a replacement for the Beretta to improve the reliability. Are we updating to improve or updating for the sake of updating.

In other words, what is wrong with the M240 that requires an upgrade?

Good question!.

Amicalement
Armand

It is easier to get money for a 'new' project through congress, than it is to get money for maintainance or rebuild programs.

Calling it 'modification' implies something newer or better, so it will probably be a rebuild including some weird feature like a rail on the receiver or a differing butt stock.

A good historical example is that the new USAF in 1950 could not expect Congress to pass money for a B29D or E model they wanted. So they called it a B50 and got the money by pretending it was a new aircraft.

As for the M240, nothing really wrong at all. Just some wear and tear from ten years or so of hard use. A rebuild program just sends the guns back to an armourer to check specs and replace worn parts.

Could we look at a sound muffled version?

Augustus, you must be the union rep thinking about our hearing for health and safety?