MARSOC to evaluate machine gun that could replace both the M240 and .50 caliber ‘Ma D
Create Post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1

    MARSOC to evaluate machine gun that could replace both the M240 and .50 caliber ‘Ma D

    The gun that could replace the decades-old M240, the standard medium machine gun for both the Army and Marines, is being evaluated by Marines with Special Operations Command.

    The MG 338, a .338 mm Norma Magnum machine gun made by Sig Sauer, recently completed safety testing, according to a Wednesday announcement by the weapon-maker.

    And soon, Marine special operations forces will put that theory to the test, Sig Sauer told Military Times.

    The MG 338 machine gun and the ammunition Sig makes to fire out of the new weapon officially have been designated by the U.S. military as safe for testing, and Sig has delivered a limited number of the machine guns to MARSOC for user evaluation.

    The MG 338 is competing with the Lightweight Medium Machine Gun, made by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems for the SOCOM replacement for the M240.

    There are no plans yet announced for the machine gun to be used outside of SOCOM.

    It is unclear whether a similar user evaluation is ongoing with the GD gun. GD did not respond to Military Times’ request for comment.

    Both the Sig and GD submissions are lighter than the 240L version of the existing 7.62 mm caliber machine gun in use by soldiers, Marines and special operators. Whichever company wins could get an order as early as 2021 for as many as 5,000 machine guns.

    The MG 338 weighs 20 pounds and, with a foldable stock, is significantly lighter than the current M240 variants.

    The GD variant weighs 24 pounds and can defeat Level III body armor at 1,000 meters and incapacitate soft-skinned vehicles with more than four times the terminal effect of the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, according to the company’s website.

    The caliber delivers maximum effective ranges to nearly 2,000 yards and maximum ranges at more than 6,000 yards, according to company data.

    The Army is in the midst of testing, evaluating and eventually down-selecting for the Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle and automatic rifle, which aim to replace both the M4 carbine and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, both chambered in 5.56 mm. The Next Generation Squad Weapon will be chambered in 6.8 mm.

    The new caliber .338 caliber for SOCOM machine guns has such range and lethality that SOCOM officials may put in in configurations where only a .50 caliber M2 was used before.
    “For the first time in decades the U.S. Military certified a new machine gun, ammunition, and suppressor at the same time, bringing new innovation, portability, and increased lethality to our ground forces, with all components coming from one company,” Ron Cohen, president and CEO of Sig, said in the statement.

    The package also includes a new suppressor that will mitigate sound and flash signature as well as reduce back blast, Sig says.

    Military Times reported the original request by SOCOM for the .338 caliber machine gun from the May 2018 annual National Defense Industrial Association Armament Systems Forum.

    https://youtu.be/sl3qfdvFmig

    Similar Threads:

  2. #2
    I L I K E it!!!

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  3. #3
    Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be another bust like the 9*mm piece of junk they palmed off on the military... I'm all for getting better, but they should be on the look out for fudged stats like they did with the 9 mm...


  4. #4
    mmm; lets see. They did away with the 14 except for certain countries and units and replaced it with junk; they did away with the 1911a1 and replaced it with junk; now they want to replace the ma deuce, and replace it with from what I'm told is junk.

    It seems to me, that the idiots would go to someone like Barrett in Tennessee and have his company to design and build a replacement for the deuce.

    Then to add insult; they give the new weapon to Marsoc for testing at Lejeune, where the Carlos Hathcock sniper range is. Carlos is probably spinning in his grave.

    ORDO AD CHAO

  5. #5
    Squad Leader Platinum Member Zulu 36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maitland
    Posts
    6,123
    Credits
    19,606
    Savings
    0
    Images
    7
    I think it MIGHT replace the 240, but not the Ma Deuce. The caliber and round length prove that. The new round might hit harder than a 7.62, and perhaps allow it to fit in a few places where the Ma Deuce is a bit of overkill in the weight and portability department. But otherwise, not much can beat a .50 cal BMG without really sizing the gun up (e.g., a 20mm).


  6. #6
    I have to agree with ZULU on this, it might replace the Ma Duce in certain circumstances, but as an "across the board replacement," I seriously doubt it. The 50 cal is simply too versatile for a smaller caliber to do the job... unless an upgrade to 20mm or something of that nature... SIG has a reputation for making quality gear, but hopefully testing will tell the tale … of course, look what "testing" gave us, the original M16 was the biggest POS ever, and required millions of dollars and many lives to turn it into a decent weapon system …. JMHO, of course, but I did have the opportunity to "test" the original M16 back in 1967, and found it "wanting" to say the least....

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  7. #7
    Squad Leader Platinum Member Zulu 36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maitland
    Posts
    6,123
    Credits
    19,606
    Savings
    0
    Images
    7
    The original M16 definitely had some issues, but most of them were self-inflicted by DoD (specifically McNamara, et al). They insisted on using cheaper propellant that burned inefficiently and thus burned dirty as hell. Plus they were convinced the rifle did not need to be cleaned because of it's unique gas-impingement system. So, limited quantities of cleaning gear AND minimal (if any) training in maintenance was provided. There were other issues, but those were the main problems.

    When I was in the Air Guard, I was issued with an AR-15, not an M-16A1. It was one of the originals adopted by the Air Force. It had been modified with the chromed chamber and barrel, and improved bolt carrier group, and of course, with the proper propellant in the ammo, it worked just fine for me. It had no forward assist either. Never had a malfunction when using ball or tracer ammo. Some problems with blanks, but that was often traced to a bad BFA. I used that same rifle for 12-years until I was issued a predecessor of the M-4, which was based on the M16A2 lower. I had no problems with that one either and could shoot bullseyes at 500-meters.

    When I was in Vietnam as a Marine, I had one malfunction with my M16A1. Luckily it was on the range as I was getting BZO. It was tracked to a bad 20-rnd magazine, which was promptly destroyed. Never had a problem with any M16A1 I was issued after that. Of course, by that time all of the McNamara ****-ups had been fixed.


  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zulu 36 View Post
    The original M16 definitely had some issues, but most of them were self-inflicted by DoD (specifically McNamara, et al). They insisted on using cheaper propellant that burned inefficiently and thus burned dirty as hell. Plus they were convinced the rifle did not need to be cleaned because of it's unique gas-impingement system. So, limited quantities of cleaning gear AND minimal (if any) training in maintenance was provided. There were other issues, but those were the main problems.

    One reason was that it was promised from the manufacturer that it was as reliable as the M-14 as far as functioning in all weather conditions and with "minimal" maintenance which proved at the expense of the Grunt to be wrong.

    When I was in the Air Guard, I was issued with an AR-15, not an M-16A1. It was one of the originals adopted by the Air Force. It had been modified with the chromed chamber and barrel, and improved bolt carrier group, and of course, with the proper propellant in the ammo, it worked just fine for me. It had no forward assist either. Never had a malfunction when using ball or tracer ammo. Some problems with blanks, but that was often traced to a bad BFA. I used that same rifle for 12-years until I was issued a predecessor of the M-4, which was based on the M16A2 lower. I had no problems with that one either and could shoot bullseyes at 500-meters.

    When I was in Vietnam as a Marine, I had one malfunction with my M16A1. Luckily it was on the range as I was getting BZO. It was tracked to a bad 20-rnd magazine, which was promptly destroyed. Never had a problem with any M16A1 I was issued after that. Of course, by that time all of the McNamara ****-ups had been fixed.
    When I was in the Corps, 73-77 I had a choice on the rifle rang as to which rifle I wanted to qualify with the M14 or the 16, I always chose the rifle that I went through Boot Camp with the M-14 and shot expert every. Then in the Marine Corps reserve 90-93 I had to use the latest variant of the 16 and it was an "okay" rifle, the stopping power was not great which I remembered from my time on active duty, but with the advent of dry slide and better cleaning (as was the case with the SAW) it needed far more lubrication and cleaning due to the light round (glorified 22 cal) it fired...

    IMO the 16 and the SAW's are a high maintenance wast of time and should be replaced with 1) a more reliable action (16 only) like was used in the weapons from the M-1 carbine to the M-14 and a fully auto M-14 is far more devastating with it's 308 round than the SAWs with it's 223
    2) the rifle needs to have a solid stock like the M-14 so you don't have to worry about breaking it when you a) help a buddy over a fence or wall, (as I did in early training) and b) you don't have to be concerned about it breaking in close combat...


  9. #9
    after my experiences with the M16 in 66 and 67, (both attempts to issue me a M16 resulted in a weapon that constantly jammed or ripped the rim off the case when extracting) I flat out refused to own a AR15 based weapon until the advent of the ADAMS ARMS piston system... that piston conversion solved 99.9% of the problems with AR based systems and turned it into a reliable platform, something that COULD have been done back in 66 and I'm thinking that a LOT of grunts would still be alive. Instead, the DOD spent a fortune trying to make the "direct impingement gas system" work, a waste of money and lives, IMHO.... now to beef up the caliber and we'll have a really decent weapon … the military's efforts to make the weapon "more accurate" has been successful, at the cost of lethality of the original 5.56 round...

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  10. #10
    I'm not in tune with the new weapons or how good or bad they are. I do know that we were cleaning the m-16 in Nam, every chance we had. They would jam in critical situations sometimes. I didn't rely on one as I was a walking gunner. I had my m-60 and a 45. I can tell you this...the m-60 was worth it's weight in puzzy in combat. You just had to move around a lot to keep the gooks from zeroing in on you. I loved my Cannonball....


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    I'm not in tune with the new weapons or how good or bad they are. I do know that we were cleaning the m-16 in Nam, every chance we had. They would jam in critical situations sometimes. I didn't rely on one as I was a walking gunner. I had my m-60 and a 45. I can tell you this...the m-60 was worth it's weight in puzzy in combat. You just had to move around a lot to keep the gooks from zeroing in on you. I loved my Cannonball....
    That was my T.O. weapon as well (0331) I loved my 60 and my 45 was worth it weight as well... when I got out I bought my 1911 and then got a new anniversary addition from Auto Ordnance when it was released...


  12. #12
    The beloved "pig" was second only to the MG42 (from which the 60 was devised) as being about the finest "man portable" medium machine gun ever fielded by any army... fortunately for me, I was able to retain my M14 for my entire tour... poor me, had to lug around that M14 and that heavy 7.62mm ammo.... NOT....the 14 NEVER failed me, EVER… and remains my "weapon of choice" out to 800m and beyond... with a 8 x 25 X 50mm scope, it is AWESOME!!!

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  13. #13
    I carried the 16 during my entire tour as well, I had never even seen one till I landed in country and one was handed to me. I had some problems at Hue with jamming (extractor), pucker factor, but when a friend of mine got hit badly, I traded for his as he wasn't coming back anytime soon. Firing so many rounds, I tried to clean mine every day. I also learned to carry 3 bandoleers all the time so I wouldn't run out.

    Out in the Arizona I had a prive in my squad that would clean our weapons if needed whenever we took 5 for $1. Nothing else to spend my money on. Later though, he was hit/medivaced and I had to do it myself the remainder of my time.

    Most of our shooting was up very close and personal so we couldn't afford problems, more long range at times in the paddies though. I also carried a 45 for just in case. All in all, I had very few problems with my weapon(s), but the 15's aren't my favorate.

    My rifle is an AK47 which I bought used, no wood - all the cool stuff. I've been told how much more accurate the new 16's/15's are at range compared to the AK, but if I have to ever use it I know it will once again be all up close and personal so I want the extra punch of the 7.62. I also have a double barrel 12ga, sweet, all I have to do is just point it. And of course my stainless 1911 5" barrel. The AK and 45 don't require all that cleaning all the time.

    From my experience in the Nam and later as a TACT officer I've always felt very comfortable up close. My weapons fit the bill.


  14. #14
    Squad Leader Platinum Member Zulu 36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maitland
    Posts
    6,123
    Credits
    19,606
    Savings
    0
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    I'm not in tune with the new weapons or how good or bad they are. I do know that we were cleaning the m-16 in Nam, every chance we had. They would jam in critical situations sometimes. I didn't rely on one as I was a walking gunner. I had my m-60 and a 45. I can tell you this...the m-60 was worth it's weight in puzzy in combat. You just had to move around a lot to keep the gooks from zeroing in on you. I loved my Cannonball....
    During Vietnam, the M60 machine gun was a fairly new weapon, meaning the guns in the field were recently manufactured. As time went on, the guns started wearing out. Towards the end of the M-60s time, they were getting pretty unreliable. We had trouble with our Pigs in my Air Guard unit. With some help from Special Forces friends, we were able to secure some good parts and rebuild our guns into something we could reasonably rely upon. Thus entered the M-240, which was overdue anyway. The M240 was and is a superior machine gun to the M60. However, the Pig was OK until they got old.


  15. #15
    Marine Free Member FistFu68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tombstone,Az
    Posts
    9,630
    Credits
    102,647
    Savings
    0
    Images
    148
    I don’t think these MARSOC Guys Operators or whatEv they call themselves these days are humping around with a BMG 50.cal ? I humped a 12gauge and .45 cause I volunteered too Hump point and got to dump my M-16...I never saw a F***ing Gook more than 30yrds away from Me in that Chit Hole across the Pond...only weapon I saw over there that gave this Ole Hillbilly an Erection was that Stoner them Squids SEAL’s humped outta Lang Co by the South China Sea..Go Easy..Adios


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts