Full video including range footage is available on the History of Weapons & War streaming app:
https://forgottenweapons.vhx.tv/videos/mg4-4k
Heckler & Koch released the MG4, a new 5.56mm squad machine gun in 2001. It was adopted by the German army in 2005, and then by the Spanish and Portuguese armies in 2007. Alongside its sister weapon the 7.62mm MG5, it is H&K’s current export machine gun.
The MG4 fires from an open bolt, with a 2-lug rotating bolt locking system and a long stroke gas piston operating system. It uses standard M27 NATO links for feeding, and does not have a semiauto selector setting. Mechanically, the MG4 uses a front trunnion into which both he barrel and bolt lock independently – meaning that the quick-change barrel can be removed with the bolt in either the forward or rearward position.
As one would expect for a 5.56mm machine gun weighing 18 pounds, it is very easy to control.
Thanks to Sellier & Bellot for giving me access to this modern machine gun to film for you!
I think Kirk may have some comments here later…
I’ll save mine for the MG5.
This thing is just another Minimi M249 clone, and while I have my doubts about the tactical utility thereof, I can’t really critique it absent some significant time behind the trigger with it.
I do think that the whole “Squad Automatic Weapon” thing was a bit of a tactical blind alley: The idea was, again, to fulfill the fantasy-ideal of “one caliber to rule them all”, something that the US quickly figured out wasn’t all that great an idea. The intent was to supplant the M60 with a lighter weapon, and then they made the amazing discovery that the 5.56mm wasn’t a suitable substitute for 7.62mm. So, we wound up with the M249 becoming just another assault rifle, albeit with a belt feed.
The Marines have already determined that that is just silly, so they went to the M27. Which they’ve now pure-fleeted as their standard individual weapon, back to what we had during the Dayes of Yore during the 1970s… Everything old is truly new, again.
Honestly, I think a lot of this stems from the confusion people have about what the weapons are supposed to be doing, tactically. The assault rifle is a relatively close-quarters security tool; you use it on things that are near threats. Anything beyond about 400m ought to be the exclusive purview of the 7.62mm MG team, and you should plan/equip appropriately. As such, this entire class of MG system is sort of ‘effing useless, in that they’re too damn big to do the close-in skeet shooting sort of affair that the assault rifle is supposed to be doing. I mean, if you want a damn bullet hose, get the 7.62mm out: It has more penetration and does more damage. The idea that the same thing in 5.56mm is going to be as effective is just ‘effing nuts.
I like the M249, but if I were forced to make a choice tactically? I’d leave them in the arms room, and take out a 7.62mm MG per fire team, along with a full-on tripod per squad.
Of course, that was before drones. Now? It’s a learning opportunity, and I’ve no idea at all where we’re headed with small arms.
“(…)So to compete with the FN Minimi and probably
the newly released FN EVOLYS machine guns,
H&K came up with a 5.56 detachable-barrel
belt-fed general purpose machine gun.(…)”
This is impossible considering known timeline. MG4 https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/germany-machineguns/hk-mg-4-eng/ was officially induced into Bundeswehr equipment in 2003, FN EVOLYS https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/belgium-machineguns/fn-evolys-2/ was introduced in May 2021.
Considering it causes problems with optics mounting, I’m quite surprised western MG designers seems to still be so attached to the MG42 belt-pull system. There are shorter ones that are not less reliable.
Still even with that, it was huge change for H&K to abandon delayed blow-back (rollers) in favor of gas operation.
Yeah, but I would have preferred they fixed the CETME Ameli.
“Fixing” the Ameli would have meant basically recapitulating the MG42 or MG45. Waste of time, really…
The basic flaw of the Ameli was that they designed a weapon which was totally uneconomical to produce, due in part to the caliber choice. High pressure 5.56mm requires extreme precision in a lot of areas when you’re doing roller-delayed blowback, and the Spanish government simply couldn’t afford it. So, the production Ameli examples never quite lived up to the promise represented by the toolroom prototypes.
I think this entire class of weapon, the belt-fed individual weapon, is a bit of a non-starter when it comes to practical use. Sure, they look good on paper and in training, but when you go to use them? What winds up happening…? The 7.62mm guns come right back out of the armories, because you need the range and power of the bigger cartridge when you’re doing the MG mission. As well, the ammo and extra weight for the belt feed and quick-change barrels make it really hard to do assault rifle-ish things with these, which is why the Marines abandoned the whole thing as a bad idea and went to the M27. It’s also why the Brits made the same choices by going away from the L86 and their purchased Minimi systems. Man, in the form of the people procuring the SAW-alikes, proposes: Reality disposes, and what has been disposed is the SAW. In most fully cognizant military forces, that is.
5.56 NATO is a finicky little round, but HK managed to figure out how to roller-delay it pretty effectively. In a SAW like the Ameli is even simpler, since it doesnt’ require the bolt lightening of an AR like the HK33, and infact it didn’t seem the Ameli had problems in cycling. It had problems, in production samples, in not dismantling itself.
As stated earlier, to me the Ameli is an exceptionally well thought-out firearm that ended up being exceptionally poorly built (regardless of the utility of 5.56 as a SAW round). The weapon seems functional, ergonomic, and producible, and there is nothing in that design that tells me it lacks in one of those departments. There is nothing I can see in there that’s too complicate, hard to manufacture, difficult to use. It’s a simple, clean design, of a lightweight SAW, easy to use, field strip or disassemble. Infact, by any account, “pre-production test examples were great”.
Then it passed to production, and disasters happened.
But, the Ameli is a 5.3kg SAW. It would be lightweight even adding a further kg of metal to reinforce the parts that need too.
The K&K G4 is a 8.15kg gun. For that weight it SHOULD fire 7.62 NATO already.
@Dogwalker,
I’m going to have to differ with you regarding the Ameli.
What that weapon had going for it, more than anything else, was “twee little cute MG42 vibe” and some gimmicky “take apart to fit in briefcase” vibes.
Actual military virtues? Real ones, that’d make it something you’d want to take to war? Not much, really: There were no features there that really amounted to much of anything, in terms of added value to the infantry squad. There was nothing there that you couldn’t do with a decent assault rifle, and the belt feed was wasted on 5.56mm. What does it matter if you can hose down a target with a round that can’t penetrate and which doesn’t do damage to material things like engine blocks and so forth?
My test for a squad support weapon is pretty much this: Would I put it on gate guard or a vehicle control point, knowing that I could stop most vehicles with a burst from it? If the answer is an emphatic “Nope”, well… You’re not talking about a squad support weapon, you’re talking about a erroneously conceived abortion of a weapon that’s neither fish, fowl, or good red meat.
In other words, the entire Ameli idea was essentially an answer to a question nobody was asking. Nobody needs a beltfed assault rifle that can be broken down to fit into an attache case, no matter how cool it looks.
And, in the end? That’s all they had going for it: The “Cool Factor”.
I’d have gotten pretty damn excited about an Ameli built in a real caliber, a true modernized and product-improved 7.62mm MG.
I’ll point out to all and sundry that the most interesting things about all the various 5.56mm “support” weapons built in the last thirty years is that they’ve all been “up-converted” into 7.62mm designs, and that those up-conversions have seen rather more popularity in military forces that are actually engaged in combat, while the 5.56mm versions languish on armory shelves and in catalogs more than they’re really used all that much.
This is the same principle we Engineer types always propounded upon with regards to earthmoving equipment: The only thing that really satisfactorily substitutes for a D7 bulldozer is another D7, a D8, or a D9. None of the other expedients quite cut the mustard; neither the M9 ACE nor the blade-equipped MBT can really do the job on the battlefield, and you’d be a lot better off trying to figure out how the hell to mobilize a D7 better than in trying to build something that can “keep up with the tanks” and still dig like said D7.
There is no substituting for bullet diameter or weight; 5.56mm is a barely adequate individual weapon cartridge, and trying to do the work of a real grown-up MG round with it is a sad joke on every infantryman whose unit you issue one to.
@ Kirk
I said: “regardless of the utility of 5.56 as a SAW round”.
Because, if the Army wants a SAW in 5.56, you cant think in term of “that round is not the best for the job, so it’s the same if the weapon firing it is good or it’s junk”.
It’s not the same. Even a weapon in a less than optimal round have to be made at the best of the possibilities.
So, what goes for the Ameli, “regardless of the utility of 5.56 as a SAW round” (that means, “compared to other SAW in 5.56 NATO”)?
1) it’s lightweight. As said, even adding a further kg of metal to reinforce the parts that need to (and in al likelihood it doesn’t need that much) it would still be lightweight. Are we going to say now that the weight of infantry weapons doesn’t count any more?
2) It’s handy. Even with the same barrel lenght it would still be shorter than both the Minimi and the MG4.
3) it’s simple. Roller delays actions are simple in general. Few parts. fixed barrel, no gas tubes or pistons, single recoil spring…
4) it’s ergonomic and easy to disassemble. The barrel change is even simpler than in the MG42/MG3. Like in the MG4, it doesn’t even need to have the bolt retracted to change it (the big lever and no rotation needed of the MG4 are instead in “you are going to lose your barrel in the swamp” territory).
And that’s all. Practically all that counts in a MG beyond reliability and durability (that are the bits that need to be fixed). Once fixed (and, as said, there’s nothing in the design telling me it can’t), it would be a better weapon than both the Minimi and the MG4. That’s all it needs to be.
That’s why, to me, to me the Ameli is an exceptionally well thought-out firearm that ended up being exceptionally poorly built.
As for the Ameli in 7.62, it was the SIG MG 710-3. Maybe it had too many milled instead of stamped parts but, as already stated, to me, it was the only western design that was comparable with, and even somewhat better than, the PKM. And not for the “cool factor”, but simply because it should have had MG42/MG3 reliability for PKM length and weight.
As for “what round for the job”, I repeat my personal classification of service “rifle” rounds based on muzzle energy.
Under 2200 Joules (IE 5.56 NATO): good for personal weapon, decent for SAW, bad for GPMG.
Between 2200 and 3000 Joules (IE .246 LICC): decent for personal weapon, good for SAW, decent for GPMG.
Over 3000 Joules (IE 7.62 NATO): bad for personal weapon, decent for SAW, good for GPMG.
“(…)personal classification of service “rifle” rounds based on muzzle energy.(…)”
Vz. 52 https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/czech-republic-machineguns/vz-52-i-5257-eng/ would land in 2nd category, as its cartridge https://naboje.org/node/45# drives 8,35 g bullet at 770 m/s giving energy 2475. It comes with quick change barrel (which is also longer than MG4) and has use magazine or belt-fed feature (one might question utility of that, but nonetheless this adds mass) and is 1950s design. Yet at 8,0 kg it is lighter than 21 century MG4 at 8,1 kg https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/germany-machineguns/hk-mg-4-eng/
@ Daweo
And it’s a redesign of the ZB vz. 26, a firearm of the ’20s.
It’s also an example of what I was saying. A very short belt pull system, that would not be in the way of an optic.
As for optimal Czech firearms of the period, see also the vz.58, that’s often labelled as an AK lookalike, but once they are put side by side, you see how much smaller (and 400 grams lighter) the Czech weapon is.
What Ian did not mention in the video is, that the MG4 has a version with aremotw trigger for vehicle mounting. The Puma IFV uses one as a coaxial machinegun. Yeah well, the Panzwäergrandiere would like a MG5 as coax, because 5,56 is a bit of a wasted potential as a vehicle weapon not utilising the stabilizes mounting and optics and fire control. The bullets are just too weak at range
Not really. H&K manufactures the G36 since the mid 90ies, which is a gas piston, rotating bolt gun as well. Also H&K have manufactured parts for the MG3, which is a recoil operated gun and many other things (like pistols) that do not use the delayed blowback system.
I am surprised to see a 2001 design announced as “Germanys new” machine gun.
Apart from that, the most prominent feature of the MG4 as seen by the troops, is its total lack of any effective range worth mentioning.
Like the MG5, the MG4 is in my opinion proof of a total loss of any factual knowledge regarding the role of the squad machine gun in combat. Instead, peacetime training range results are taken as representative of combat. Both, by Bundeswehr military personnel as well as Heckler & Koch decision makers.
Forgotten weapons anyone?
hehe
Great great show.
But I’m getting to hate youtube, I mean what’s next? if you say the word “gun” your video will be removed. And what is youtubes thought behind not allowing full auto fire? IT’S TOO EVIL! Yet they allow movies with a kill ratio that surpasses any number of just rounds you have ever fired on your videos. I would like to have been in the wardroom when that decision was made. “little children will go out and buy 50 BMG M2’s if we don’t stop showing Forgotten weapions shooting full auto.” and everyone at the table shaking their heads up and down.
Anyone else experiencing something calling itself “Wordfence” kicking you back?
Me, over and over again.
Certain words trigger it. Unfortunately for us, they are words we commonly need to use in what we’re talking about.
Wordfence seems to have been programmed by someone who is apt to have a case of the vapors if anything to do with guns, the military, and especially Counter (You Know What Word Goes Here) ***fare is in the post.
I’ve been booted over and over again over the years and had to learn what words NOT to use if I want a post to go through.
All I can say is please, Ian, ditch WF already. It’s more trouble than it’s worth.
I will be very surprised if this post isn’t booted.
clear ether
eon
I respectfully recommend against that. In the last year or so, TFB stopped using Disqus, and TTAG ditched WordPress. Now neither provide notifications, so commenting is down to a tiny fraction at both sites – and both still have blocking / moderation / “mystery keyword” issues.
Highly ‘effing ironic that Ian is doing to his website the exact same thing that YouTube has been doing to him and others in this space.
If you can’t articulate and publish the standards you want held to on your website, maybe you shouldn’t bother with having a comment section in the first place…?
The post that keeps getting kicked back has no discernible issues that I can find in it; nothing objectionable, nothing controversial… Yet, the idjit-box making decisions about it apparently thinks I’m advocating for the slaughter of helpless Labrador puppies.
The irony is palpable.
Let’s try this again:
@Dogwalker;
Like I said… If it was in a grown-up caliber that had actual utility in a belt-fed weapon, then I’d be all for the Ameli.
As it is, it was designed for and built in 5.56mm, putting it into a class I’ve grown to question. The issue with this idea is that you’re basically taking the concept of the Automatic (or, Machine…) Rifle, and modernizing it. When that was a BAR, OK… Kinda useful, but not a perfect solution. A burst from a BAR is going to stop most vehicles, as the Barrows found out on a rural road in Texas.
Trying to shoehorn that role/mission into something firing an optimized individual weapon cartridge is flatly insane, because there’s no real purpose to it, in tactical terms. You can’t penetrate cover, you can’t stop vehicles, and your MG fire is now really nothing more than “a bit more” of the individual weapon assault rifle. What’s the point?
I think people have lost sight of what the hell the weapons are supposed to be doing: The individual weapon is a self-defense weapon, sliding into “offensive” only at close-range engagement spaces like urban combat or trenches. If the range is under about 3-400m, any modern assault rifle will do. And, that’s all they need to do: Engage the enemy infantry at close quarters. You want something handy and “wieldly” to coin a term, not something encumbered with a heavy caliber or a belt feed. You’re basically shooting at the tactical equivalent of skeet; you don’t take a 20mm autocannon to that engagement, you take something like a nice, light 20 gauge shotgun specifically designed for that task.
The machinegun is supposed to be doing the lion’s share of the tactical work, especially outside the range band that the individual weapon shines in. You need to be firing something that can penetrate and which will do some damage; that’s not any of the individual weapon-suitable calibers.
Which is why about every army actually engaging in combat has left these things behind; the Russians aren’t really issuing the RPK series all that much, these days, and the PKM and its variants have mostly supplanted them. Same with everyone else; the British gave up on the L86 and the Minimi both, going back to the L7. The Negev is now “available” in 7.62, just like the SS-77.
This is yet another example of “desire path” armament procurement: The actual end-users are making the choices, based on the recognition that these individual weapon cartridge-chambered beltfeds are tactically poor choices. If I need to reach out and touch someone with a burst of MG fire, then I’d best be doing that with something that’s going to penetrate and do some damage. Rain down 5.56mm on a formation that is in among trees and rocks, you’re wasting time; the projectiles won’t penetrate the cover they have available. A hail of 7.62mm? Not so much; someone is getting hurt, and the weight of that ammo is worth being able to count on that.
I will say that I think we’ve gotten our “caliber solution” bands at least somewhat unbalanced; if it were up to me, the individual weapon would be chambered in something a bit more powerful than 5.56mm, and the MG would also be in something a bit “oomphier” than 7.62mm.
Say a cut-down 6.5 Swedish, and a blown out version of their 8X63 MG cartridge. The way I’d work at it would be to download the original 6.5 Swedish until most soldiers could reliably control it on fully automatic, and then fit the case to that load. The MG cartridge? I’d take a look at the likely targets I wanted to hit (and, actually do some damage…) at what range, and then go from there.
I really have my doubts about the utility of the various .338 MG concepts. The weight, the damage done to barrels, and all the rest make me think that those are just too damn big for the role. I could be persuaded otherwise, however.
I understood that, and I’m all for it.
BUT, as said, if an army, in its insanity, decides to adopt a SAW in 5.56 NATO, then it still has to adopt the best SAW in 5.56 NATO.
All other things equal, a SAW that weight 3 kg less, is still better than one that weights 3 kg more.
(le sigh)
Let’s see if I can try to get the point I’m making across: Armies adopting a 5.56mm SAW are demonstrating ineptitude at battle-conception, and a general failure to comprehend how modern war works. If they pay attention, most of them are acting on the reality they find with regards to the SAW: It’s not a good solution.
I myself was in denial about this, and then observation and research has taught me that there are excellent arguments for doing what the Brits and the USMC have done: Abandoned the concept. After the Soviets reached the same conclusions and did the exact same thing, with the RPD.
Intermediate-caliber “support” weapons don’t do enough real “support” to make them worth the investment in either manufacture or carriage really worth it. The potential role they might fill is already being filled by the full-auto selector switch on the individual weapon, and if you’re going to issue one of those that can play assault rifle, then what’s the bloody point? You need effective support fire, that’s going to penetrate cover, that’s going to do the anti-material role, and which is going to do the necessary out past the individual-weapon band of combat.
So, the SAW class of weapon is effectively useless in combat. That’s why everyone has either supplanted their SAW designs entirely, or they’re operating in a haze of obliviousness that makes you wonder why those parties are still in charge of anything.
The compromises to agility and mobility down at the squad level are simply not worth them with regards to having a belt-fed SAW; you’re going to be slower and less able to maneuver? Issue and carry something that’s going to actually make it worth the effort… Which ain’t going to be in 5.56mm.
I like the SAW. I like the concept, but… I’m starting to come around to the idea that when you need to assault rifle, assault rifle. You need to machinegun, machinegun. Nothing else really works; the idea that a SAW is going to add value during the fight is really not all that valid, based on what we’re seeing out there. Nobody in Ukraine is screaming for them; everyone who needs small arms fire support is taking a PK or some other Western equivalent into the fight. Nobody is asking anyone for RPD-alikes, and you don’t see many of those pulled out of storage, even though we’ve seen things like the Nikitin dragged back into service (likely, screaming “I belong in a museum!!!! I belong in a museum!!!!).
The fascination with things like the Ameli and all the other 5.56mm “support” weapons is something I find really amazing: Nobody anywhere with practical experience is really all that enthused about this class of weapon, while they’re in love with taking the big 7.62mm in their place. You can do most of what the SAW is supposed to do with your individual weapons, unless you’re issuing something like the SKS, so what’s the point?
Now that I think about it, I kinda wonder how much the 3-round burst restriction on the M16A2 came in because they wanted to force the M249 down everyone’s throat. That thesis strikes be as being reasonable, knowing what I know and having lived through that tactical epoch in American service.
Ameli is a cute toy; it is not a tactical tool of any real value, just like the rest of its class. Go big, or stay home is the lesson here.
Ok, let’s see if I can be more clear.
I’m not doubting in any way that the 5.56 is not the ideal cartridge for a SAW, and that the tactical considerations behind the adoption of belt-fed MGs in 5.56 NATO as SAW are bullshit.
BUT. If this very moment, the US Army says, to any weapon manufacturer, that they indicted a competition to replace all their M4 with pump action rifles in .357 Magnum, the manufacturer has the right to look at them like they are complete idiots for 10 seconds, but THEN he has to design the best pump action rifle in .357 magnum he can, to participate to the competition.
And the tecnical considerations on the quality of the weapon, have to be made comparing it to other pump action rifles in .357 Magnum.
So, Let’s make a hypothesis.
Let’s say that we live in a world where an hypothetical weapon manufacturer (that we can call with a simple acronym, like “FN” for example), made a belt fed MG in 5.56 NATO (that we’ll call with a name that none in real life would use for a firearm, like “Minimi”, for example).
And let’s say that this manufacturer, for some reason, started to sell those improbable weapons like hotcakes. Let’s say that even the world’s n.1 army adopted it.
So, at this point, while several armies in the world are indicting competitions to select and adopt belt-fed MGs in 5.56 NATO, what another hypothetical weapon manufacturer (that we can call with another simple acronym, like “HK” for example), should do?
1) tell to those armies: “No, sorry. 5.56 NATO is not good for your belt fed MGs. You can come back when you want one in a more sensible cartridge.”
2) design a belt-fed MG in 5.56 NATO to participate to those competitions, but make it crappy, because 5.56 NATO is no good for a SAW anyway.
3) design the best belt-fed MG in 5.56 NATO they can, and participate to the competitions with that.
I’m for the 3rd option, and I judge the result starting with the consideration that they had to design a belt-fed MG in 5.56 NATO, not in another caliber, that could have been better, but would have condemned the weapon to remain as a prototype in HK’s museum, because it couldn’t participate to the competitions for belt-fed MGs in 5.56 NATO.
I’ve not any fascination for the Ameli as a support weapon.
I judge the fact that it could have been a better weapon than others that had been FAR more successful, had the industrialization phase been done right.
“(…)RPD-alikes, and you don’t see many of those pulled out of storage(…)”
I must protest because https://www.forcesnews.com/technology/weapons-and-kit/rpd-80-year-old-light-machine-gun-given-new-life-ukraine