# Wanted by CF:  (as many as) 230 x 7.62mm MINIMIs



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2013)

This from MERX:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the provision of one hundred eighty-five (185) 7.62 MM Light Machine Guns plus ancillaries specified under "Proposed Work" below. The proposed contract will also include an option to purchase up to forty-five (45) additional 7.62 MM Light Machine Guns. The purpose of this Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) is to signal the government's intention to award a contract for these weapons to FN Herstal. Before awarding a contract, however, the government would like to provide other suppliers with the opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable of satisfying the requirements set out in this Notice, by submitting a statement of capabilities during the 15 calendar day posting period.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


MERX posting also available here if previous link doesn't work.

More on the Minimi 7.62 TR LMG from the FN web site here


----------



## brihard (11 Apr 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from MERX:MERX posting also available here if previous link doesn't work.
> 
> More on the Minimi 7.62 TR LMG from the FN web site here



Very interesting. Good catch, Tony.


----------



## Ostrozac (11 Apr 2013)

Is this the weapon that the US Navy calls the Mark 48?

What's this for? This seems too small a purchase for the entire infantry, and seems to be too many machineguns to be a purchase for those other guys...

Is this the weapon for the TAPV? Or maybe a purchase strictly for the light battalions?


----------



## jeffb (11 Apr 2013)

From the FN website, it is the MK 48. 

With those sorts of numbers I can see this being a replacement for the C6 with anyone other then "the other guys".


----------



## Ostrozac (11 Apr 2013)

I don't know about completely replacing... we have a LOT of C6 in the inventory. Maybe replacing the C6 in specific roles, or replacing the C9 in the light battalions. I thought about TAPV because I don't know much about the weaponry for that project -- I had a thought that maybe the RWS on it needs something lighter than a C6.

But these are just my educated guesses. I really don't know what we will use the Mk 48 for. 

But I do like machineguns.


----------



## jeffb (11 Apr 2013)

AGH! Meant to say can't... As in I CAN'T see these replacing the C6. Sorry for the typo. 

I can't see the acquisition of a lighter 7.62 MG for the purpose of a vehicle mount. This has to be for some sort of primarily dismounted operations hence why I am thinking "the other guys".


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I can't see the acquisition of a lighter 7.62 MG for the purpose of a vehicle mount. This has to be for some sort of primarily dismounted operations hence why I am thinking *"the other guys"*.


Not a bad guess (although the post gives no indication one way or another) - or a test run of some sort.


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie (5 May 2013)

http://www.casr.ca/doc-acan-7-62mm-lmg.htm

Appears to be for CANSOFCOM. Likely JTF-2 and CSOR only?

Does anyone know how the USSOCOM MK-48's compare to the US M240? Range, Durability etc?  I would assume the M-240/C-6 has better range and that the barrel on it may be more durable due to it's size/weight? 

Would it be a viable option to issue to dismounted infantry and leave the C-6's mounted to vehicles?  Thinking about dismounted operations especially in mountain area's like patrols in the mountains of Afghanistan made me wonder how useful it would be in dismounted operations.

CF budgets as they are I guess it would not be done. If it had many advantages I don't know if the US Army would try that?


----------



## Jungle (5 May 2013)

NovaScotiaNewfie said:
			
		

> http://www.casr.ca/doc-acan-7-62mm-lmg.htm
> 
> Appears to be for CANSOFCOM. Likely JTF-2 and CSOR only?



That's speculation on the part of CASR; speculation on my part, looking at the numbers involved, this order may also involve the LIBs.


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2013)

Anything CANSOF only uses the National Security exemption, and thus doesn't appear on MERX.


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2013)

While we may have lots of C-6 GPMG's, many are old and shot out. Even fresh ones from war stocks have one huge disadvatage: they weigh 11 Kg. I would like to see this program gradually scaled up to replace the C-6; first in the LIB's, then for dismounted Infantry and finally dismounted troops in general. Existing stocks of C-6 can contiue to serve in vehicle mounts, where the weight is less of an issue. The only change to whatever weapon is chosen is it should be able to fit on existing tripods, or the mounting cradle of the tripod replaced with one that fits the weapon. 

It would be nice to reverse the trend of ever escalating weight of kit in the military.


----------



## CFBigMike (26 Jun 2013)

What about the H&K 121. looks far more impressive in filed testing than FN. I believe its a little more versatile as well. But I can't say much as I've never shot a C6 or C9 or other FN product. 

I think the government just looks at dollar signs more than anything when it comes to kit.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (26 Jun 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I had a thought that maybe the RWS on it needs something lighter than a C6.


Unlikely.  Weight in an RWS when dealing with MG's is not a significant factor.  A couple of kg's between a C6 GPMG or LMG doesn't matter.


----------



## Old EO Tech (13 Jul 2013)

Yes the C6 fleet is in sad shape, I can see this as a purchase to support all the new RWS systems coming online with TAPV.  Hopefully we can continue to sole source this as the replacement for future 7.62 MG.  Would make logistics support a lot easier if we standardized on one C6 replacement.  That way we don't end up with the RWS type crap with trying to support 4 systems all going threw various levels of parts obsolescence.  :-/


----------



## Illegio (14 Jul 2013)

I don't see this as a C6 replacement, and certainly not for an RWS - as was previously mentioned, weight is a moot point when the system is carrying the gun. As far as a replacement for the C6 in the dismounted role - I ain't seeing it either. These things were essentially designed just as an interim solution, beefed-up C9s, and are really intended to be used as such at the section level. The C6 is a tougher, simpler weapon (breechblock vs rotating bolt), and if you throw the Mk 48 into the traditional C6 role the guns will tear themselves apart a lot faster than even the shot-out remnants of the once-proud C6 fleet currently frustrating aspiring weapons det commanders on Mod 6.

Does it have a place? Sure - you can push it down to the section level for more firepower at the cost of increasing the burden of weapon and ammo weight  - or you can push it up to platoon for a modest decrease in weight at the cost of reliability (previously mentioned), range, (depending on barrel length) and accuracy (yeah, it sucks to carry it, but it's nice to have the weight when you're actually firing it).

I'm curious to see what the results of the US M240L "lightweight" GPMG program are. Claimed weight savings of 18%, but I have no idea what, if any, effects the change in materials has on reliability or anything else.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (27 Aug 2013)

Aluminum frame vs. 7.62mm. Should be interesting to see these fail spectacular regularity.


----------



## KevinB (27 Aug 2013)

It has a very short service life...
 Unlike the MAG-58/C-6/M240 that can be rebuilt -- its also not an alunimum frame - but sheet steel with bolt raisl welded to the receiver instead of riveted like the MAG - its more of an assault/SOF MG than a GPMG, and NOT built for vehicle or Sustained Fire usage...
  For some roles the juice is worth the squeeze.

 -- its not a Mk48 -- but similar - the 7.62mm MINIMI has a few differences and maybe by FN Herstal not FNMI (US) -- price of the Mk48 is higher

Looking at MERX you see a lot of CANSOFCOM items these days - the Security Clause is not apparently acceptable for small arms in an era of transparency...


Hk121 is too heavy for the requirement mentioned above.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2015)

Bumped with the latest - let's try this one again, shall we?



> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the provision of commercial-off-the-shelf 7.62 mm - Light Machine Gun detailed under Part 7, article 7.1, of the bid solicitation ....


This time, it looks like they're looking for 2 batches:  one batch of 3, followed by 185 units.

More techie details in the attached Statement of Work.


----------



## Shrek1985 (12 Jun 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> It has a very short service life...
> Unlike the MAG-58/C-6/M240 that can be rebuilt -- its also not an alunimum frame - but sheet steel with bolt raisl welded to the receiver instead of riveted like the MAG - its more of an assault/SOF MG than a GPMG, and NOT built for vehicle or Sustained Fire usage...
> For some roles the juice is worth the squeeze.
> 
> ...



So why not just get some KSF-58F kits? telescoping stock, short, fluted barrel; on standard MAG-58 receiver.


----------

