Machine Gun With Longer Reach Sought By U.S. Army

A machine gun in .338 Norma Magnum caliber would give Army units significantly greater range than they have now with their 7.62x51mm M240s.

Joseph Trevithick
Posted 20 Hours Ago

The U.S. Army is looking at acquiring a new machine gun chambered to fire the .338 Norma Magnum cartridge, but that can also be converted to use the same 6.8x51mm ammunition as its next-generation M7 rifles and M250 light machine guns. A machine gun in .338 Norma Magnum would give Army units much greater reach than they can get now with their 7.62x51mm M240-series types. The service is eyeing conversion kits that would allow its existing M240Bs and M240Ls to fire the 6.8x51mm rounds, as well.

The Army’s Contracting Command-New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal recently issued two separate contracting notices seeking information about potential options for a dual-caliber .338 Norma Magnum/6.8x51mm machine gun and M240B/L 6.8x51mm conversion kits...

Complete article with several photos and videos:

https://www.twz.com/land/machi...h-sought-by-u-s-army

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sigmund,

I can see wanting to convert the M240s to use the new 6.8mm ammunition. Commonality of supply and so on. I suppose there might be an issue with the M240s getting old and at some point needing to be replaced anyway, but being a dumbass civilian I have no idea what that time frame looks like.

But don't they already have a well proven "longer reach" machine gun in the M2?

Over the last 20 years we discovered that our adversaries knew where to set up their support weapons in terms of the effective range of out 7.62 MMG's. The 338 Norma cartridge pushes this range out several hundred meters, which is exactly what the pentagon was looking for.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wouldn't the adversaries just move another couple hundred yards back to counter the longer reach of the 338?

From what I understand the effective range of the 338 NM chambered M240 is around 1,600 meters. That's a 600m increase from the 7.62x51 chambered gun. The extra 600m of coverage pushes the enemy harassing fire out further, and makes it less effective. Also, the lethality of the 338 is much better at the outer range of it's effective fire vs the 7.62x51.

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wouldn't the adversaries just move another couple hundred yards back to counter the longer reach of the 338?

How many military personnel are effective shooters at 1600+ meters?

With a MG at that distance, it's less about precise shots as it is about area suppression.

As far back as WW1, machine gunners were taught to use their MGs for indirect fire, creating long distance "beaten zones" to either suppress an enemy or deny their travel through an area.

The enemy will just duct-tape trauma plates on their backs.

As usual, RogueJSK gave a clear and succinct explanation of machine gun employment at long ranges. Machine guns are effective not because they’re precision weapons like sniper rifles but because they fire a lot of bullets at a general area. Effective range matters because not only does it directly cause death and destruction farther, but the passive effect is to force the enemy to move farther away and farther away translates to less effective threat.

As for why not just the M2 and the 50 BMG cartridge, the M240 evidently offers a higher rate of fire, but more important, the new cartridge is significantly lighter and that means more rounds can be carried and be available for use when needed.

If we’re not satisfied with the ballistic effectiveness of the 32 S&W cartridge for defensive handgun carry, we could of course rely on a 44 Magnum S&W model 29 like Dirty Harry. But would that be the best choice? Most of us would say that although the 32 isn’t enough, the 44 is too much, and we therefore choose something in the middle like the 9mm Luger or even better ( ), 357 SIG or 40 S&W.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
The enemy will just duct-tape trauma plates on their backs.

I see Mall security doing that sometimes

Todd, is that you?

quote:

Originally posted by ss9961:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
The enemy will just duct-tape trauma plates on their backs.

I see Mall security doing that sometimes

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
How many military personnel are effective shooters at 1600+ meters?

Machine gun, not sniper rifle.

Sniper rifle, it's one accurate shot
Machine gun is more of a "Fuck you and everyone and everything around you" kinda weapon.
It's made to throw a bunch of rounds in a short time at a target. Toss a tracer in there about every 5th round or so, you see where your rounds are going.

I'm standing waaaayyyy over here with my friends out in the open tossing rounds at you.
You want ME. Grab a sniper rifle.
you want me and my friends to stop our bullshit; grab a machine gun, toss a whole-lot-o-lead at us, you're probably hitting two, maybe three of us before we get behind cover or just get out. Keep tossing lead at us, keeping our heads down as a few of your friends sneak around one of our sides and they mess us up critically with more accurate fire.

My gun is only good to about 800 yards, yours is good to 1600ish.
It keeps me far enough from you to do any damage.

A .338 beaten zone? As a former M60 toter, I would enjoy seeing that in action!

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
A .338 beaten zone? As a former M60 toter, I would enjoy seeing that in action!

Eeew! “The Pig”! Humping that thing around just sucked.

“The beaten zone”- 300gr of lead rain vs 146gr of rain coming down… yeah, that .338 is gonna tear some stuff up!

I rather enjoyed the M-60. Without the T&E mechanisms it was really only a 600m weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Eeew! “The Pig”! Humping that thing around just sucked.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
I rather enjoyed the M-60. Without the T&E mechanisms it was really only a 600m weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Eeew! “The Pig”! Humping that thing around just sucked.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a GREAT weapon! Tossin’ a whole-lot-a lead down range!
UNTIL you gotta hump it up and down some hill or in some desert.
Then it just sucks.

Truth be known I was in my late teens through early 20's when I 'enjoyed' humping the Pig. Later in my career I was happy to either have it vehicle mounted or be assigned a different weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
I rather enjoyed the M-60. Without the T&E mechanisms it was really only a 600m weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Eeew! “The Pig”! Humping that thing around just sucked.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a GREAT weapon! Tossin’ a whole-lot-a lead down range!
UNTIL you gotta hump it up and down some hill or in some desert.
Then it just sucks.

M240 7.62 variants weigh from 22 to 27 lbs.
By the time you beef it up for .338, how much will it weigh? How much does a can of .338 ammo weigh?

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:
M240 7.62 variants weigh from 22 to 27 lbs.
By the time you beef it up for .338, how much will it weigh?

They're not talking about converting M240s to .338. (The conversions mentioned in the article are for converting existing M240s to 6.8x51mm, for which the weight difference will be minimal.)

So there's no need to remain married to that heavy older M240 design with these new .338 MGs.

For example, the new M250 MG only weighs 13 pounds. So something similar to the weight of that newer design - even beefed up to handle .338 - wouldn't be unreasonably heavy. Likely still end up weighing noticeably less than the existing M240s, and with a higher performing cartridge.

Especially if they incorporate something along the lines of a "constant recoil system" so they wouldn't have to rely on the sheer mass of the gun to dampen as much of the .338's recoil. For example, the KAC AMG uses this system and is able to moderate the recoil of full auto 7.62 NATO despite weighing only ~13 pounds. Same role and cartridge as the M240 or M60 at half the weight, because it takes advantage of the ~50-70 years of further advancements in design and materials compared to the Cold War-era MG designs like the M240 from the 1970s or M60 from the 1950s.

It's a bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off...

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
For example, the new M250 MG only weighs 13 pounds. So something similar to the weight of that newer design - even beefed up to handle .338 - wouldn't be unreasonably heavy. Likely still end up weighing noticeably less than the existing M240s, and with a higher performing cartridge.

Especially if they incorporate something along the lines of a "constant recoil system" so they wouldn't have to rely on the sheer mass of the gun to dampen as much of the .338's recoil. For example, the KAC AMG uses this system and is able to mderate the recoil of full auto 7.62 NATO despite weighing only ~13 pounds. Same role and cartridge as the M240 at half the weight, because it takes advantage of the ~50 years of further advancements in design and materials compared to the Cold War-era M240 design from the 1970s.