Special Operations Command wants a 10-pound 5.56mm machine gun

The command that oversees U.S. special operators expects the Flyweight Assault Machine Gun to begin field testing in 2028, a spokesperson said.

Jeff Schogol
Published Aug 6, 2026 4:50 PM EDT

U.S. Special Operations Command is looking for a new machine gun that weighs about 10 pounds and fires 5.56x45mm NATO rounds, said Navy Cmdr. Joe Vermette, a spokesperson for the command.

The Flyweight Assault Machine Gun would replace the Mk 46 — a special operations variant of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon — which has been in service for about 30 years, Vermette told Task & Purpose...

Complete article:

https://taskandpurpose.com/new...rations-machine-gun/

Anyone recall the CETME AMELI LMG? Very cool, but fired from the open bolt, so not an option for US military.

quote:

Originally posted by xmod:
Anyone recall the CETME AMELI LMG? Very cool, but fired from the open bolt, so not an option for US military.

Both the SAW and the M60 fire from an open bolt. Why would something like this be “not an option for US military”?

I always thought US military didnt like weapons systems that fired from the open bolt vs closed bolt. During my time in the US Army with the M60, used to initiate an ambush, you could get a misfire and have the bolt slam closed. That was a concern with the M60.

I just did a quick google AI search and confirmed US military prefers weapons systems firing from the closed bolt over open bolt.

Doesn't KAC already have something that meets the criteria and is in service in SOCOM? An evolution of the Stoner.

I think Surefire has one that's similar to the Ultimax and the Israeli Negev may meet the criteria too.

AFAIK, the open bolt keeps things cool, prevents cook-offs, and enables easier barrel swaps.

I just read the solicitation that was linked in the article from the OP. A secondary requirement is - “ Will not present an unintentional releasing of the bolt or movement of the safety when tested in general accordance with the TOP-2-3-045 Rough Handling – Drop Test.”

That would pretty much eliminate open bolt designs.

Well shit, so do I! Serve it up.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Doesn't KAC already have something that meets the criteria and is in service in SOCOM? An evolution of the Stoner.

Yep.

Related discussion here from back in May: https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...780048025#2780048025

As I mentioned in that earlier thread, the KAC LAMG is as light as 8.5 pounds in its lightest configuration. So 10 pounds is easily doable for a latest generation LMG.

With the constant recoil system used by designs like the LAMG, which mitigates much of the gunner's felt recoil, you don't have to rely on big chunky components and heavy overall weight to soak it up in order to make the gun controllable.

I suspect the KAC LAMG may be the frontrunner already, since it's currently in limited use with USASOC (Army) units. This may just be an attempt to formally standardize on it across all of SOCOM. Or, there could be something(s) specific about it that they don't like and are hoping to correct with the new one.

I'm sure they do. Only time will tell it it actually gets adopted or the funding gets cut for another visitor's center or the next round of officer's club renovations.

I don’t understand why they don’t produce Stoner’s again for this purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by 10X-Shooter:
I don’t understand why they don’t produce Stoner’s again for this purpose.

They basically do. That's exactly what the aforementioned KAC LAMG in my post is... the latest development of the Stoner 63/86/96 family of LMG designs.

It's currently in use by US special operations units, as well as a few foreign militaries.

Also, I saw just the other day that the USMC has recently been trialing them as well, since they're already in DoD channels. They're apparently considering moving away from the IAR-as-SAW concept and back to a true LMG at the squad level.

By going lighter and lighter, aren't they sacrificing some long term durability?

Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the most commonly used LMG and GPMG designs are all 50-70+ years old.

The M249 (FN Minimi) is a design from the late 1970s. The M240 (FN MAG) is from the 1950s.

Weapon design, technology, and production have come a long way since the 1950s-1970s. So you could have lighter designs, made with lighter aluminum/titanium components in some areas, and using newer systems that don't rely just on the chunky mass of big steel parts to absorb recoil or tame fire rate, all potentially without sacrificing durability.

In general I agree, but I think a lot has to do with recoil management. Today's designs do a better job of dissipating recoil energy that the older designs did.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawes:
By going lighter and lighter, aren't they sacrificing some long term durability?