The Return of the Belt: Why Russia Is Making a Belt-Fed Light Machine Gun Again
At the turn of the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union deliberately abandoned belt-fed infantry at the squad level. Not through oversight or cost-cutting, but for several perfectly reasonable reasons, each of which seemed indisputable at the time. The Degtyarev light machine gun, with its excellent performance, gave way to the magazine-fed RPK, and for six decades, belt-fed infantry remained in squad use only as part of general-purpose machine guns. And in the 2020s, Kalashnikov Concern unveiled the RPL-20 and RPL-7—again belt-fed, squad-level weapons chambered for assault rifle cartridges. What must have changed in sixty years for a solution once rejected to become necessary again?
RPD: a tape that didn't catch on
History It all begins with Vasily Degtyarev. The first prototypes of his light machine gun appeared in 1944, and by 1945, the experimental RPD-44 (designated by the year of its development) was already undergoing military trials. It was accepted into service in 1949 under the name "7,62 mm Degtyarev light machine gun."
Soldier of the People's Army of the GDR with RPD-44
The RPD was an advanced design in its own right. It fired the intermediate 7,62×39mm cartridge—the same one that was being developed as a single cartridge for the new family of small arms. weapons, an assault rifle, and a machine gun—and used a belt feed. This was a rare combination: a lightweight cartridge provided a tolerable ammo load, while the belt provided dense, continuous fire without frequent reloads. With an intermediate cartridge and belt feed in a single light machine gun, especially at squad level, the RPD became one of the first mass-produced models with this combination.
But at the turn of the decade, the course of action changed. A series of decrees and orders from 1959 to 1961 established a gradual transition from the RPD to the Kalashnikov system: the replacement was not immediate, but rather spread out over time. Three factors are most often cited as the reasons for this.
- Belt operation. The round metal boxes housing the belt rattled when moving, became deformed by impacts, collected dirt, and caused delays when firing in the field.
Every argument was fair. A magazine for mobile squad combat proved more practical, and the belt was relegated to the level of general-purpose machine guns, where firepower is more important than weight.
Half a Century of the Store: RPK and its Ceiling
The RPK—the Kalashnikov light machine gun—was developed in parallel with the AKM assault rifle and was its direct relative. It differed from the basic assault rifle in having a longer, heavy, non-removable barrel, a reinforced receiver, a bipod, and a magazine (either a 40-round slot or a 75-round drum). The logic is simple: same soldier, same skills, same cartridge, just a heavier barrel.
RPK - Kalashnikov light machine gun
The family subsequently grew alongside the assault rifle. The RPK-74 appeared chambered for the 5,45×39mm cartridge, followed by the modernized RPK-74M, and now the RPK-16. The calculation paid off: a machine gunner is still the same as a submachine gunner, just with a heavier barrel and a bipod.
But the magazine-based concept had a ceiling, and a rather low one at that. Even a 75-round magazine meant a pause for reloading, after which suppressive fire would be interrupted. And the pause is critical for suppressive weapons: it's during this pause that the enemy rears its head and begins to respond. Furthermore, the non-removable barrel limited the duration of intense fire: overheating forced the machine gunner to maintain fire discipline more strictly than desired in a heated battle.
For a long time, these limitations (the loss of fire during reloading and the overheating of the non-removable barrel) were considered an acceptable compromise. But in high-intensity conflicts, where the squad again required sustained, concentrated fire while maneuvering, what had previously seemed like a theoretical inconvenience turned into a very real problem in combat.
RPL-20 and RPL-7: The Ribbon Returns
The answer was two new machine guns. Sergei Urzhumtsev, Kalashnikov's chief designer for small arms, is overseeing the design of these lines; development is being carried out at the company's Design and Technology Center in Izhevsk. They were unveiled to the public at the Army-2020 and Army-2024 forums, and then, according to the manufacturer and media, both underwent field trials, including in a special military operation zone.
RPL-20, photo - Kalashnikov Concern
RPL-20 — a belt-fed machine gun chambered for the 5,45×39mm cartridge. It weighs 5,5 kg, has an effective range of up to 800 m, and, according to the manufacturer, a rate of fire of up to 800 rounds per minute. It uses a gas-operated, long-stroke piston system and fires from an open bolt: between bursts, the cartridge doesn't remain in the hot chamber, making it more resistant to overheating during long bursts than the closed-bolt design typical of assault rifles.
The RPL adopted a rational solution to overheating: it wasn't solved with a single, clever detail, but rather broken down into several simple solutions that work together. The most important of these is firing from an open bolt. After a burst, the cartridge doesn't remain in the hot chamber, the chamber and barrel cool faster, and the risk of spontaneous combustion and thermal overload is significantly lower than with a closed-bolt assault rifle. The ammunition itself also helps: a lightweight intermediate cartridge, whether 5,45×39 or 7,62×39, produces less barrel heat than a rifle's, even with the same number of shots fired. Then comes the mechanics: a thicker barrel with a longer service life, a gas system with a long piston stroke, and a fire mode designed for long bursts, not for pushing the assault rifle to its limits. The stated barrel lifespan of 15–20 rounds depending on the version sets the upper limit for acceptable heating conditions and in itself serves as a benchmark for how intensively the machine gun can be used. There's no liquid cooling, no interchangeable barrels, or other exotic systems here—the focus is on a classic and proven combination: an open bolt, a carefully designed barrel, and firing modes. It's not a flashy solution, but it's reliable—exactly what a squad weapon needs.
RPL-7, photo by Rosoboronexport
RPL-7 — the same design, but chambered for the more powerful 7,62×39mm cartridge. Due to the larger cartridge, its magazine holds 80 rounds, compared to 100 or 200 for the RPL-20. The stated service life differs: for the RPL-7, it's at least 15,000 shots, while for the RPL-20, it's at least 20,000. Both machine guns are offered with two barrels: a 590mm barrel for long-range fire and a 415mm barrel for confined spaces like urban areas.
They have a lot in common, and almost all of them are hallmarks of 2020s weapons. A fully ambidextrous design allows for firing and control from either shoulder. A folding, adjustable stock. A continuous Picatinny rail with 46 slots across the top provides space for day, night, and thermal sights, target designators, and flashlights. Standard compatibility with a low-noise suppressor. Feed is via a solid metal belt fed in boxes (100 or 200-round capacity for the RPL-20, 80-round capacity for the RPL-7).
Another small, but telling detail: the machine gun is loaded by pulling the belt, without opening the receiver cover. Less dirt gets inside, and the weapon is ready for combat faster. If you recall the rattling round receivers of the RPD, there's a half-century and a completely different engineering school between them.
What has changed in sixty years?
Now about the three arguments of the 1950s–1960s – what happened to each.
The unification that once led to the belt's defeat no longer hinders it. The RPD was removed not because the belt itself was bad, or because of the cartridge—it was the same as the assault rifle. It was the chosen concept: the squad's weapons system was built around maximum unification with the AKM—a common design, a common production, a common training system. The RPK fit this logic perfectly, the RPD did not. Today, the pendulum has swung back: squads are once again required to fire sustained, concentrated fire while maneuvering, and a belt is better suited to this task than a magazine. At the same time, ammunition unification remains—the RPL-20 and RPL-7 fire the same 5,45×39 and 7,62×39 as the assault rifles. What has changed isn't the availability of the cartridge, but the squad's view on what is more important: extreme simplicity or density of fire.
Manufacturability, the second argument, has lost its relevance with the development of production. Expensive milling, which in the 1950s decided the fate of the RPD in favor of the stamped RPK, is no longer an insurmountable obstacle: modern machining methods and the overall advancement of technology have significantly reduced the relative labor intensity, and belt-fed weapons are no longer destined to be more expensive than mass-produced magazine-fed weapons. And the third reason, the rattling and fragile receivers, disappeared along with the old design: the one-piece belt in the receiver and the pull-type loading directly address that same field problem of sixty years ago.
The division of the line by cartridge is also interesting. The RPL-20, chambered for the light 5,45mm, is positioned for maneuverable combat, where the machine gunner moves a lot and every kilogram of ammunition counts. The RPL-7, chambered for 7,62×39mm, delivers more powerful lethality against targets behind cover and light vehicles; it is better suited for urban and densely populated areas. The two machine guns on the same platform serve different purposes, while remaining nearly identical in weight and handling.
According to media reports, serial deliveries of the RPL-20 to the military were expected starting in 2025—these are plans and press reports, not a confirmed fact. While the 5,45mm version is primarily for the domestic army, the RPL-7 chambered for 7,62×39mm has a clear export potential: this cartridge remains one of the most widely used worldwide. So, the return of the belt-fed machine gun isn't out of nostalgia. Modern combat once again demands squads to fire sustained, concentrated fire while maneuvering, and this is precisely the task for which the belt-fed machine gun is designed.
Information