It comes up short in that the gun is 10 lbs heavier than those other LMGs. Adding features like round counters doesn't justify a 10 lb weight increase. Even doing the honest thing and acknowledging that the MG5 is designed for more significant sustained fire than the KAC AMG/FN EVOLYS/SIG MG68 etc, falls short because the MG5 had receiver breakage issues despite all of that increased weight.

The M60E6 beat out the HK121 in testing against each other by the Danish military. As far as I'm aware, that was the most modern light machine gun trial done in the West. If I'm wrong on that, I'll be gladly corrected. But it should be indicative that the M60E6 is the better LMG/GPMG of the two firearms. Or at least on par, despite being lighter and being made of stampings rather than castings.

Frankly things come off more as you excusing the MG5 of its faults without applying those same rules to other modern LMGs that have the deal with them all the same while coming in lighter and/or more effective.

Apsyda said:

Adding features like round counters doesn't justify a 10 lb weight increase.

Yes it does. If the requirement is for a gun with a round counter.

Apsyda said:

ven doing the honest thing and acknowledging that the MG5 is designed for more significant sustained fire than the KAC AMG/FN EVOLYS/SIG MG68 etc

It isn't quite the opposit is true. Sustained fire is not a focus of the MG5.

Apsyda said:

But it should be indicative that the M60E6 is the better LMG/GPMG of the two firearms. Or at least on par, despite being lighter and being made of stampings rather than castings.

No. Such a trial or competition is not indicative of anything. Because to understand why the Danes decided on which gun you would need to look at their evaluation process in detail. Which you can't since such information are usually not open to the public.
In most cases the gun selected simply was the cheapest one offered. Its also important to note that the Danish military did not procure the M60 as GPMG but as 7,62 SAW/LMG. Its only issued as infantry weapon. So the Danish competition doesn't allow any conclusions about the M60 as a GPMG. A role in which it is notoriously bad.

Apsyda said:

Frankly things come off more as you excusing the MG5 of its faults without applying those same rules to other modern LMGs that have the deal with them all the same while coming in lighter and/or more effective.

I am not excusing anything. I am pointing out that the problems are in the procurement process. Not in the design process. As mentioned by me befor: its the same as with the G36 which was also claimed to be badly designed. Which is not true. Its perfectly up to spec. If the specifications are sensible is a different matter entirely. The specifications are not made by the design team but by people in the MoD. Who got apparently what they wanted. A LMG with all modern bells and wistles plus a couple of fancy boutique features. Of course the resulting gun is not as light as it could be and will not be good as an GPMG.

The reason is simple it was not designed as one. It was designed as a 7,62x51 LMG. Allmost entirely focussed on use by dismounted infantry. It was pressed in the GPMG role because some decision makers insisted on the GPMG concept.

Aside from safety and environmental considerations, it seems that an army would probably be served best by not having a GPMG, but to differentiate the SAW/LMG and the GPMG/MMG, even though both are 7,62x51. For instance, the M60e6, or even a magazine-fed LMG like the Hk 11, for the SAW/LMG role, and the MG3 for the GPMG/MMG role. In this way the SAW can be made as light as possible even though some durability may be sacrificed, while the GPMG/MMG can be built heavier and more durable, and have a high rate of fire, because it will not be required to fill the SAW role. 

Wessels3 said:

Aside from safety and environmental considerations, it seems that an army would probably be served best by not having a GPMG, but to differentiate the SAW/LMG and the GPMG/MMG, even though both are 7,62x51. For instance, the M60e6, or even a magazine-fed LMG like the Hk 11, for the SAW/LMG role, and the MG3 for the GPMG/MMG role. In this way the SAW can be made as light as possible even though some durability may be sacrificed, while the GPMG/MMG can be built heavier and more durable, and have a high rate of fire, because it will not be required to fill the SAW role.

I used to think the same. But now I think it doesn't really matter. The lightweight MG for dismounted squad use that became fashionable in the last two decades was a specific requirement for the COIN operations which dominated military operations at this time. More specific the theatres in which these operatons took place and the way they have been carried out.
Since this is mostly a problem of the past IMHO it makes little sense to get equipment optimised for yesterdays war.
Its not that GPMGs don't work. They are just not optimised for a specific situation because of the general purpose nature. But they do offer advantages.
With the return to mechanised combined arms warfare the need for a 7,62 SAW/LMG is significantly reduced IMHO. In this environment the SAW comes into its own again. Bascially we are back in a pe 2001 situation. So the needs changed back again.
This of course depends a lot on the nation. But as far as I can see allmost all NATO members are pulling out of adventures in strange and foreign lands and focus back on homeland and alliance defense.
 

schnuersi said:

I used to think the same. But now I think it doesn't really matter. The lightweight MG for dismounted squad use that became fashionable in the last two decades was a specific requirement for the COIN operations which dominated military operations at this time. More specific the theatres in which these operatons took place and the way they have been carried out.

Since this is mostly a problem of the past IMHO it makes little sense to get equipment optimised for yesterdays war.

Its not that GPMGs don't work. They are just not optimised for a specific situation because of the general purpose nature. But they do offer advantages.

With the return to mechanised combined arms warfare the need for a 7,62 SAW/LMG is significantly reduced IMHO. In this environment the SAW comes into its own again. Bascially we are back in a pe 2001 situation.

There is a famous quote which seems applicable here:  "It's like déjà vu all over again."

I'm also reminded of another quote, something about failing to learn from history.

Pre-2001, US and NATO focus was on preparing for mechanized combined warfare against the Russians, but that was not the type of wars actually fought.

IMO, you're looking at it wrong.  The 7.62 SAW/LMG is not just "optimised for yesterday's war."  It's better than the GPMG even for equipping mech infantry.

Funny you should mention that...

There's a suppressor company who  basically integrated a working and self sustaining once temperature hits 450 f lewis gun style air cooling system into a can meant for belt feds.

Something like 30 or 40 minutes to go from 1585 degrees to Ambient.

Yup that 150 gram round counter definitely explains the mg5 being 10 pounds heavier than everything else alright lmao ...  And if hk can't do a loaded chamber indicator for under 15 grams they should have gave the mod their money back....

So far you've managed to explain away 165 grams, only 9 pounds 10 ounces to go lmao.

And no but they made them put on rails isn't an excuse either.

Also Frankly, if the mod's specs were that stupid bad and asinine SHAME ON HK for taking their money to give them things they damn well knew might meet the spec but in no way were up to the actual job at hand!

I'm gonna be honest here, I don't think you've thought through your argument at all because if we are to take you on your word as to how all this came to pass it actually makes the bundeswehr HK and the German MOD all look substantially worse not better.

Honestly your version is way worse than HK just utterly flubbing the design and putting out something utterly unfit for purpose at a weight that's completely laughable and unacceptable.

What's truly sad Is I'm inclined to take you at your word as to how all this transpired (especially considering mg4 and the hk416 also bear the marks of exactly the same thing)

At the end of the day you've probably convinced me and multiple other people here that hk just isn't the company it used to be and ruthlessly took advantage of an incompetent and moronic mod in order to deliver an unsatisfactory product they knew the German government had to put into service because they functionally have no other recourse.

I honestly don't believe that In tyool 2022 you actually have to have one or the other because both can't be done in the same platform.

I think the industry is either taking advantage or has genuinely lost the ability to do better even though better is entirely within reach.

stancrist said:

IMO, you're looking at it wrong. The 7.62 SAW/LMG is not just "optimised for yesterday's war." It's better than the GPMG even for equipping mech infantry.

I agree on that. Its only logical because the former is optimised for this application the latter is not.
But IMHO the question is if a LMG is really needed in mech inf squads if a SAW is available.
Another question is if the advantages of a purpose designed LMG for infantry squads outweight the disadvatages of a special piece of equipment used in limited numbers.
Depending how someone answers these question you end up with different needs.

roguetechie said:

So far you've managed to explain away 165 grams, only 9 pounds 10 ounces to go lmao.

True but I have not dissected the gun so to speak. I just pointed out some functions the MG5 has and the MG3 has not. The MG3 is a wartime design. With strong focus on ease of production, reliability and roughness. Everything is rather simple and there are no bells and wistles. The gun is basically as optimised as it can get. The technical successor MG45 is further simplyfied by using a delayed instead of a locked bolt and a fixed barrel instead of a moving one. This reduces the number of parts needed and allows for further simplifications. At this point you have reached a technical plateau. If you want to save further weight you have to accept drawbacks.
Its allready difficult to design a gun that has the same capabilities and features but is lighter than the MG3. Designing a gun with more features that is lighter will be very difficult. There is a reason why all successfull GPMGs are in the 10-12 kg range.

roguetechie said:

Also Frankly, if the mod's specs were that stupid bad and asinine SHAME ON HK for taking their money to give them things they damn well knew might meet the spec but in no way were up to the actual job at hand!

Welcome to reality.
Of course they take the money. HK is a publicly trades corporation. A significant part of the stocks is in the posession of professional investors.
Seriously i have a hard time thinking of any company who would pass on a profitable deal because they don't like the resulting product.

roguetechie said:

I'm gonna be honest here, I don't think you've thought through your argument at all because if we are to take you on your word as to how all this came to pass it actually makes the bundeswehr HK and the German MOD all look substantially worse not better.

My intention is not to make anyone look better. Just to put things in the correct perspective.
The Bundeswehr and the MoD are two different entities BTW. The procedure is roughly: the Bundeswehr eg. military needs a new gun and asks the MoD, the MoD forms a commitee, with only a few soldiers and technical experts most members are politicians, the commitee comes up with specifications and requirement, this is then passed to the BAAIN (the Branch of the Bundeswehr who takes care of technical stuff and runs the technical and research divisions), the BAAIN then conducts the testing and evaluation according to the specs the MoD came up with, once done they pass these back to the MoD, who concider this a mere recomandation and make a decision as they see fit.
And yes I do think this system is bad. Very bad actually.

roguetechie said:

At the end of the day you've probably convinced me and multiple other people here that hk just isn't the company it used to be and ruthlessly took advantage of an incompetent and moronic mod in order to deliver an unsatisfactory product they knew the German government had to put into service because they functionally have no other recourse.

Yes the German MoD, actually most governmental agencies, are notoriously bad at formulating good and proof contracts. This is frequently exploited. Not only by HK. Allthough I personally would do the same. IMHO if you are stupid and refuse to act acordingly you deserve to be taken advantage off.
The MoD would have other options. Tonns of options actually. But since all decisions are made for political reasons the number of viable options quickly shrinks to one or two.
Nobody would have stopped the MoD to pay a company to set up a production line for MG3s. This proposal was actually made. The MoD decided against it.
The findings and suggestions of the BAAIN are frequently brushed aside too.
The specs the MoD comes up with usually bear little resembelance of the requirements and needs the military has.

Its also not the case the all people in the industry are happy. Usually the people actually involved in the project want to make a good job and deliver a good product. Just as with the Bundeswehr, its the higher leadership that doesn't care. But this is not special for the defense industry. Its more or less the same everywhere.