New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

Medium Machine Gun/General Purpose Machine Gun

* Limited ammunition capacity significantly reduces unit combat endurance, tires soldiers quickly, and makes gun-mounted solutions even more difficult.

How does the limited ammo capacity tire soldiers quickly?

What do you mean by "gun-mounted solutions"? And how are they made more difficult by limited ammo capacity?

* Recoil and muzzle blast reduce hit probability, while increasing the gun position signature to the enemy

The position signature doesn't look that bad to me.

[video=youtube;8xdj0lBklvM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM

The happy medium 6.5mm takes the pros from each, while cutting out the cons. With a constant-recoil operating principle, we could have an 11lb belt-fed machine gun that is very well suited for the close range maneuver fight in the Fire Team, while being able to exceed the retained energy of both the 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54R belt-fed machine guns past 500yds, staying supersonic well into the 1100-1300m range.

Okay. How do you suggest making your happy meal 6.5mm machine gun a reality? I sure can't see FN or HK developing it.

What this suggests is a totally new machine gun classification, that I call the Multi-Role Light Machine Gun-a morphing of the LMG and MMG/GPMG.

Oh jeez. MRLMG. Another five-letter abbreviation. Can't we have a three-letter type, preferably one that can be spoken as a word (such as AUG and MAG are)?