FN’s new Evolys machine gun is designed to fill an interesting role not already help by either the MAG or Minimi – it is intended as an automatic rifle in the mold of the BAR or M27 IAR, but capable of much greater firepower than either of those. This is a short-stroke, belt-fed automatic rifle focused on light weight and accurate fire. To do this, it sacrifices the QD barrel capacity (akin to the RPD, RPK, and KvKK-62). I found it to be extremely pleasant to shoot in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm, and I am excited to see it gain traction with military forces capable of exploiting its capabilities.
Full version with full-auto shooting available on Patron and Pepperbox:
https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/posts/163642126/
https://www.pepperbox.tv/video/13799
Thanks a lot for this excellent presentation of the inner workings of these machine guns. FN found some very clever design solutions. The large rearward component of case ejection is less to my liking. After all, they are quite hot.
Hot, hot, hot… I hate this gun watching the video again, confusing me. Last war, now JUNK metal costs money and everyone needs it, vs Russians. Suppose, it might be me.
It is a good gun, get it…
I think the AR style buffer tube and stock are a great idea. Since the tube is empty it would make a great place for a cleaning kit and tools.
It would, that is true… But there is something I don’t like about this gun; and do you know what it is! It’s vs the Taliban. Not Russia. Well unlucky.
Good on FN; I see some really good ideas brought to fruition in these weapons. I’m not so sure about all that open space inside the receiver working bits, which strikes me as being an open invitation to some really spectacular jams if a loaded or empty cartridge case “exceeds expectations” and winds up gumming the works up, but… Hey, what do I know? I only have 25 years experience keeping machineguns working in the field.
As a design consideration? You want to eliminate any potential you can for things like the cartridge or the expended case going anywhere but where you want it. Can you say “Controlled Feed”? It’s not just a good idea in bolt actions, it ought to be in every weapon. Period. You also want to eliminate any excess space inside the mechanism such that “things going wrong” leaves you with cartridges or the expended cases finding little glory holes to wander into.
That said, I have a few other issues here that FN isn’t likely really responsible for. Actually, there is one issue with several aspects…
Firstly, there’s the minor fact that you can only get so much range out of a shoulder-fired machinegun. That maximum is probably around 800m, with certain exceptions due to the gunner being just that good, or more likely, lucky.
The whole thing revolves around the instability and variability of the human shoulder and that bipod. You have to have the weapons locked down such that the burst doesn’t wander all over hell’s creation, reducing effect, or you have to limit yourself to “Well, that ain’t gonna work…”, because it… Won’t. Work, that is. This is precisely why none of our brave Afghan ventures worked in terms of answering distant PKM fires: You cannot effectively address long range targets with a machinegun until and unless you are firing that machinegun off of a tripod that is locked down with a T&E mechanism that allows you to do proper fire corrections and have a decent-sized beaten zone at range. High rates of fire help here, too, but we’ve all delusioned ourselves into thinking that 1200-1500rpm is “too high”. The interwar German army knew better, the WWII German army demonstrated that fact, and the entirety of the Allied forces never wrapped their heads around it, thinking that their logistics were more important than killing the enemy as far away from friendly troops as possible.
The people who determined the specs on what FN built are the ones in the wrong. What they should have done, if they were really interested in doing actual real machinegun work with these weapons, was to specify that the new weapons were either stabilized sufficiently to afford long-range effects between 800-1800m (max effective range on the 7.62X51), or that they had provision for a light, adaptable tripod affair such that the weapon was actually capable of providing effective area effects in that range band.
You want a close-range bullet hose? Well and good; buy one, but also recognize that your troops are going to face situations where they have to reach out and effectively kill the enemy in that deeper range band. If you’re unable to do that, then you are going to be in the same position that US forces found themselves in trying to address PKM fires in Afghanistan.
I suppose you could perhaps get away without a tripod were you to build in some sort of semi-deranged and highly complex solution like a gyroscope that would serve to stabilize bipod/shoulder-mounted fires, but I’d strongly suggest that simpler is better, and you ought to have a look at the DISA Lafette mount from WWII, address making it lighter and even more flexible, and then do better training with your machineguns.
You can color me in as “not a fan” of the entire Automatic Rifle genre. If you’re going to go to the trouble of lugging around a belt-fed weapon, I want the damn versatility of one along with the long-range firepower. I totally get why they want “assault machineguns”, but I also know that whoever is lugging that thing around is eventually going to have to consolidate on an objective somewhere, and that they’d be a lot better off if they could simply transition the weapon over to a tripod-mounted affair. Not to mention, dynamic machinegun use in combat virtually requires that capability, whenever your leadership is stupid enough to restrict your other supporting arms via moronic ROE that leave you unable to answer long-range fires from the enemy.
Well… I think you make some good points, Kirk, clearly; you knowing your subject. Hmmm, what to say about it…
No top cover. But a big fat fecker, with fixed barrells… New.
Kirk!! Can the no top cover design; as in this tall angle be made, more potentially more reliable in your opinion? Cut out the shit you said may cause, shit, etc.
“(…)they were really interested in doing actual real machinegun work with these weapons(…)”
FN itself https://fnherstal.com/en/blog/fn-evolys-5-56-bridging-the-firepower-gap-and-rethinking-squad-level-support/ claims EVOLYS …is not intended to replace heavier systems such as the FN MINIMI® Light Machine Gun or the FN MAG® General Purpose Machine Gun. Instead, it offers a complementary capability that fills a niche between rifle and light machine gun, particularly for units that operate in complex, close-range or urban settings…
I agree that the best use of the design is limited to close in encounters or in confined spaces where something longer and heavier would be cumbersome.
WWI MGs, that were weaponized versions of the industrial tooling of the time, had tons of empty space inside the receivers, like any workshop tool of the time.
It’s one of the reasons of their reliability in the worst conditions possible. Empty space gives dirt places to go instead of locking the mechanism.
Obviously that doesn’t mean the cartridge should be free to go where it wants. See how the same MGs took care of the cases.
I’m not a fan of the “MG without quick exchange barrel” idea. If the Steyr AUG, that’s a freaking AR, has a quick exchange barrel, you can put one EVERYWHERE without weight disadvantages. If then someone really wants to carry in action an automatic weapon without a spare barrel, his choice.
I have an MGI true quick-change barrel AR upper. I no longer believe in the idea (for AR15s), but the fact that it weighs <1lb is certainly noteworthy.
Found something over on X/Twitter that shows the result of “too much room inside the receiver” and the lack of fully-controlled feed:
https://x.com/T_55AM1_/status/2086958416451522827?s=20
I’ve seen M249s do that sort of thing, in person, but I think five rounds might be a bit of an outlier…
Well I mean, what to say. Think I will have smoke and read the above comments… After watching that. Have a think, no top cover, like that angle thus…
Tall fecker.
Not interested in the .556mm Version point 1. So skip that. Ok… So Bren guns, had barrel changes… “Not designed for the last war this, is it? Special forces vs Taliban.” As oppose Russians, who do use Rpk’s to be fair. But Rpks look like, they might be cheaper…
I do like the no top cover, think better idea would be to bin .556mm and cross it with the Gpmg barrel change lark.
I don’t like the stock; as mentioned on the video. And thus… But in 7.62mm given we have ditched that.556mm farce… This bolt, the way they have avoided a top cover – Slender looking isn’t it. Thinking more Gpmg barrel, and a stock which in 7.62mm does something. As oppose fold. Very slimline parts, everything just so – Bet these FN guns, not cheap? Don’t like that; mass death, in wars against say Russians.
“(…).556mm Version(…).556mm(…)”
Caliber below 1 mm? Please provide reliable source supporting existence machine gun of said caliber.
Slender feed ramp, bolt, carrier etc… Like someone TYPED INTO CHAT FECKING GPT almost… You know, it not knowing, about shit snapping in half, buckling and generally going fucked… with giving it earth shaking red hot 7.62mm machine gun fire, so they said (Special forces) no don’t like the useless stock… Currently.
Nooo… I do like it, but don’t, flimsy Ai chat gpt design… Good though! Overall. Need to use the stock, BEEF, It up. Aye… Otherwise this is a computer game gun, aye… Aye.
Beef up this new; which it is – No top cover lark, angle thing… Thinking use Ar stock thing. Special forces, haa! Even for them, this is a skinny little shit inside – Thousands of ex commies firing at you. Lets look at it again in 7.62mm
“(…)flimsy Ai chat gpt design(…)”
This is impossible considering timeline.
FN EVOLYS™ according to https://fnherstal.com/en/fn-evolys/ The new FN EVOLYS™ ultralight machine gun will be on display on FN Herstal booth, Belgian Pavilion, North HALL, at the DSEI international trade show, London, from September 14 to 17, 2021. therefore it existed before tool you mention was released at November 2022.
Have to watch the video again now, a few times, stumped myself for comment. Ha…
Might be able to do semi using spring as now, and full open bolt with an Ar spring… Stuff – Chop that front shit off gmpg barrell. Stuff. Improved gmpg not for just for “Special forces” stuff, reckon…
I don’t like it as it is because of cost, we’ll lose loads in an actual war. Loads. vs other major powers with guns “Folk an all” but loads of guns, cheaper! I like it not having a top cover like, in principle, makes it tall but it isn’t any fatter really.
Hk21 that sort of thing this is… Like that. Not good enough, good but missing something, and I think that is? An Fg42… Thing? A cross. Aye… Might be wrong but sticking with that, use this Ar stock…
Sat there looking at us, saying why don’t I have a spring in me… For something.
https://youtu.be/uXJaQY-l6bM?is=rEzPtzq4_PAe-1n0 Think everyone, think. How can we do this good gun better. Aye BETTER! Come up with things, anything – The next war won’t be vs the Taliban.
Practical example; Australian triangular bolt, would that not be better on this? No idea, but see, saw an Australian gun with a triangular bolt on here years ago… Not A.I but mutha fecking I use it or lose it. Think people think, stuff, angry Russians, Commie Chinese, Robots. Engage your brain.
Hey, pdb makes me need an ignore button.
could we get one or block them?
Whats your problem 03:45Hrs here in England, explain yourself Sir.
Block me for what? Saying something? You fecking say something then. Simon. YOU.
Design one, you do it, nobody else has for… What year is it 26, 25, 24… 14, 13. Do it Simon. You do it.
Think it would be better with a detachable barrel personally… Do you differ? Special Forces or something, its given, role. You might be right.
03:55HRS SIMON. In Britain. And I am drunk. And trying to think of ways to use this guns AR STYLE STOCK…
When I want to ignore X, I ignore X. Small act of selective attention. It doesn’t take a button. Call me a Luddite.
Nikky Dandelion… See Simon, you like me now, Google it. Actually 4am hammered, bed for me night!
What did they think first when they adopted the magazine fed M27 as a light machine gun?
The 30 round capacity is not up to what is expected for support fire.
The USMC has a different vision of how to fight.
Squad structure, for example? Classic three fireteam setup, built around an automatic rifle. The WWII version had the BAR, the Vietnam version was sort of lacking, although I understand that the Marines did try both the “heavy” M16A1 that was just handing out the bipod and telling the “automatic rifleman” to keep his weapon on fully automatic by default alongside the one where they had an M60 in every fire team. I don’t think the second one went very far.
It’s a different mentality, and the idea with the M27 is based on the M249 having been too heavy and slowed down the fireteams too much. My take is that they’re going to regret not having belt-feds down in the squad fire teams, and no amount of “Let’s dance between the raindrops/bullets” is going to compensate for lacking the firepower when it comes time to either break into the objective or defend it during consolidation.
Finesse, in other words, simply does not substitute for raw firepower. Anywhere on the battlefield. Also, if you’re moving so fast that you can’t take along your beltfeds? It’d be my suggestion that you’re moving a little too damn fast, and are likely going to regret that. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast…
The Marine’s persistently opt for the idea of light over heavy, down in the infantry formations. It’s an historical habit, and one I personally don’t find at all comfortable. Assault troops are grand and glorious things to be, but have you eyeballed their casualty rates?
My preferred mentality is the one the Germans espoused: Use your firepower as a tactical tool, and do not “assault” a damn thing. Let your bullets do the work: If you’re standing up in front of someone else’s machinegun teams and riflemen, you done f*cked up, Clyde…
Nice designs, but I do wonder about the tactical advantage of the 5.56 version. I am assuming this would used in a unit with riflemen with 5.56 carbines. What does a 5.56 machine gun (almost I would say a sub-machine gun) add to the picture. Same shorter effective range and terminal performance. Maybe used as a last ditch weapon when a position is being overrun. The 7.62 NATO version would add further range and stopping power. Is there anyone out there that can justify the 5.56 version?
I liked having the M249 around in my squads. In training, it seemed handy to have in order to suppress close-in assaults, support those close-in assaults we were making, and as a general supplement.
I did not like the extra weight and hassle it brought with it. If I could have, I think I would have traded it straight-up for a 7.62 GPMG, and we actually ran a setup where we had two M249s and an M240 in each squad for awhile. That treated the M249 as an Automatic Rifle, and we generally did not do missions with the spare barrel and other accessories along with it.
The main drawbacks I see to the individual weapon-caliber machineguns are that you simply don’t get enough “oomph” for the weight and drag of the things on your operations. I think the Marines are on to something with the M27, but I also feel like they’re making a huge mistake not keeping belt-feds down in the squads.
If it were I, designing my ideal squad setup? I’d have around a fourteen-fifteen man squad broken down into three teams and a headquarters element consisting of an RTO/ELINT operator and recon drone operator, two basic fire teams built around an automatic rifle, and a third built around at least a 7.62 true GPMG. That just feels right to me; run one rifle team forward when expecting contact, two when not, and keep the GPMG element with the squad leader along with the RTO/ELINT and drone.
Things are changing rapidly in this space, and I’m unwilling to lay anything down that’s hard and fast. You have to approach every engagement with the mentality of “there’s something here to learn; teach me”, and expect to be surprised. Anyone doing this work in this era and who has set ideas and preconceived notions is going to get a lot of people killed; you have to see what actually works and what does not, while being open to experience.
I honestly don’t envy young combat leaders, these days. The real issue here is one of overarching inflexibility and preconceived beliefs by the higher-ups in the hierarchy, and I’d strongly suggest that those erroneous beliefs are probably prevalent even up to the most recent combat-experienced leaders in the next higher tiers.
War has gone open-source, and if you’re thinking like the Cold War or even GWOT era leaders? You’re almost certainly wrong.
Did you see the news that SF wants a 10lb belt fed 5.56mm machine gun. Must have changeable barrels. Only one I’ve seen is the Fightlite belt fed upper. Pop the pins change any upper to their upper and shoot. Needs more development, a bit finicky. I fired one, a real hoot when running properly. Rob Roy from Colt would be proud!