Magnum Caliber MGs: Overkill or the next big thing for Spec Ops and Infantry?
Posted by StrangerOutrageous68@reddit | ForgottenWeapons | View on Reddit | 98 comments
The Magnum Caliber Machine Gun concept essentially bridges the gap between a .50 cal HMG and a .30 cal GPMG.
(NO it is NOT nor it EVER will be compareable to 12.7x99 or 108 in power. And no it is not a requirement to scale up to 338 to penetrate x lightly armored vehicles at y distance.)
Even if some of the designs on the list do not have final weight numbers or any weight numbers yet, they would turn out to be in the weight class of the GPMGs of the mid-20th century (FN MAG) thus creating a more flexible gun to be used by infantry.
From various dismounted and mounted applications, not just special ops raining down hell from hilltops but for indeed mounted positions, quickly setting up defensive emplacements in hard to reach or unsafe to supply areas.
The question is, is it really worth the hurdle of adopting a machine gun in .338, specifically, as all designs use the .338 Norma Magnum?
.
The first gun that really stands out to me in terms of flexibiltiy and modularity is of course the Ohio Ordnance REAPR that uses a similar mechanism that, to my knowledge MG-45 used.
It's signature feature is that it can be taken apart and packed in a bag. It also has switchable feed-side and charging, multi-cal conversion capability it really does everything. Perhaps it tries to do too much for how much space it has available and that left it with down ejection.....It really needs a box to feed from and that box will end up like it was on the M240.
What is good about this system is, it doesn't use hydraulic trickery, just lots of springs.
Ohio Ordnance video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpdr0uKpdp4
The SIG's MG338 (3rd picture) that uses the patented recoil system developed for the GE LWMMG, an earlier 338 design that allows the barrel assembly and action to recoil inside the bulky receiver. And is also ambi charge ambi feed, yet it keeps the ejection port to the side. It's a big gun!
Garand Thumb video with the boys: https://youtu.be/TW_Jt17BtRo
True Velocity RM338 (4th picture)
It is an evoltuion of that GE LWMMG with the recoil mitigation system that seemingly results in even milder recoil.
Garand Thumb video: https://youtu.be/TW_Jt17BtRo
Two differing designs from FK BRNO BKS338 and a yet undesignated Zastava MG use enlarged PKMs designs. (5th and 6th picture)
FK BRNO BKS338 firing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f34tocGnnmI&t=20s
Norinco also seems to have joined the Magnum MG game. (7th picture)
(Image sources. thefirearmblog. com, Reddit, Sig Sauer, Ohio Ordnance , Reddit, recoilweb. com )
Casval214@reddit
308 is fine just make the 240 lighter.
Kegalodon@reddit
We already have Mk48
windowmaker525@reddit
And M240L
Casval214@reddit
As a 0331 more lighter is more better
BoxofCurveballs@reddit
Now make the a bag lighter
Casval214@reddit
No you must carry the spare barrel and suffer
MandibleofThunder@reddit
Least you're not one of the poor bastards in mortars carrying the baseplate
BoxofCurveballs@reddit
Beats being the ammo man
Ignonym@reddit
And the Maximi
kwead@reddit
not sure if this is misinfo but im pretty sure 308 can punch through the armor of a BTR
Ophensive@reddit
Depends on the BTR model, what part of the armor is hit, what angle it impacts, and the type of projectile is being used
Revolutionary-Wash88@reddit
Assuming ideal ammo, who would win more often? Does the gunner need the perfect angle and aim? Does the shitty BTR get Swiss cheesed while the best one is untouched?
Ophensive@reddit
Generally you’re not gonna get too much accomplished shooting an armored vehicle with 7.62 x 51 with the potential exception of a minigun
kwead@reddit
magnum caliber MGs might fill that niche then? although i doubt people are shooting at APCs with small arms very often anyways, it's a really bad and risky idea and im sure they would much rather just throw a drone at it
SmokeyUnicycle@reddit
It was literally designed to avoid that happening in combat situations
So it might be possible but its not practical.
mp8815@reddit
These aren't intended to be gpmgs. They are meant to replace the m2. .50bmg is very inefficient for its current role. It cant defeat most modern armored vehicles, and the ones it can can also be defeated by .338 norma api for significantly less weight and recoil.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
Ackshually the 240 doesn't shoot .308, it shoots 7.62x54 NATO
Q-Ball7@reddit
You can't really make the M240 lighter because it's a WW1-era design that arguably should have been put out to pasture by the 1930s. Instead, you adopt something modern, like a PK or M250 (which is basically just a downscaled MG338).
But really, for most armies it's figuring out what you can do with the least amount of logistics overhead.
A magnum MG like this makes sense for armies that do have a dedicated GPMG caliber, don't have many heavy/vehicle-mounted machine guns in .50 BMG/12.7x108/14.5x114, but do have bigger stuff like 20mm autocannons.
This applies to Europe as much as it does to Africa and the Middle East; neither the French nor Germans ever bothered to develop a modern heavy machine gun like the US and Russians did. The Chinese didn't either, for that matter.
By contrast, if you do have one, and/or if your service MG is already in 7x57 Mauser (or its modern analogue, 6.8x51), then there's no point in not just going with the heavy machine gun you already have.
Jack_547@reddit
Poland uses a PKM modified to fire 7.62x51. I've seen one in person, they seem like great MGs.
mr_trashbear@reddit
Idk, but they look sick, and if it means mass production of .338, that's fine by me. I want a magnum bolt action, but don't want $3/round range ammo. So that'd be cool.
Also this timeline of leapfrogging armor defeating solutions seems like if it keeps escalating, maybe we'll get some shoulder fired autocanons or railguns in our lifetimes. For Super Earth!
atchibulle@reddit
Look like a FN MAG and a PKP had a child
Angryhippo2910@reddit
I feel like this is a solution in need of a problem.
Is there something out there that really needs a .338 that cannot be solved by hurling more .308 at the problem? And if you can’t solve it by hurling more .308 at it, why not just make the jump up to .50?
It’ll suffer from higher recoil, and you can’t carry as much ammo as you would with .308. And if you’re mounting it on a vehicle, why can’t you just slap an M2 on there and call it a day?
Seems a bit niche to me.
Turgzie@reddit
If you can utilise the .338 then you can also utilise the .50. If you can't utilise the .50 you cannot utilise the .338 to it's full effectiveness either because of ammo size and weight.
If you deploy the .338 like you would a 240 then where's all the large and heavy ammo going to go? Without enough ammo it is useless in a fireteam.
Because of those two points I see the .338 MG as being redundant. The roles can be and are fulfilled by current weapons like the 240 and M2.
Ares4991@reddit
The 338 is usable in a lot of scenarios where the 50 is not. The weight of them is roughly in line with the M240, meaning they can be man portable. Humble bragging here, but I'm probably the only person in this thread that fired a REAPR off hand - try doing that with a 50!
You might think the ammo is heavy too, but it significantly lighter than .50 BMG ammo. That means you get to bring (almost) .50 firepower and range, to places where you usually cannot, like a Little Bird or lightly armored scout vehicle. Even if you can mount it on your vehicle, in some cases you might prefer a .338 over a .50 exactly because of the lighter ammo, since it allows you to pack more ammo.
Basically, you're sacrificing only a little bit of range and punch, and gaining a lot more utility, which has not been put into doctrine yet.
Q-Ball7@reddit
Sure, but remember that only the US (and Russians) even have a heavy machine gun to begin with.
Lots of nations don't (Europe most famously, but also Africa, ME, SE Asia, and China [to a point]); they're good candidates for something like this, and going from the 240s they already have to this is just adding more capability for the same weight.
Lordblackmoore@reddit
well, in europe we stll use the M2 0.50 as a heavy MG...because why invent something new when we still have the old warhorse doing just what it was meant to
CWM_99@reddit
Certain things make the 338 a better option than the 50, namely the fact that 50s are not man portable for the most part, needing the tripod to be effective. The OOW Reapr is intended to be man portable to a significantly higher degree than the m2 by weighing less, having allegedly a super good recoil absorption system, and running well from the bipod. I could see it doing well in SOCOM as a tool for niche applications
guilmon999@reddit
338 NM like the sigmg338 machine guns are man portable. 50 bmg machine guns like the M2 are not.
338 NM easily has more than double the range of 308
338 has around double the energy of 308
It's for when you want a man portable heavy machine gun.
Angryhippo2910@reddit
This is the best articulated argument in favour of such a weapon that I’ve seen yet. I do still think it’s pretty niche, but there’s definitely some interesting use cases, especially in an environments with really long engagement distances
FrozenSeas@reddit
It's another case of building equipment to fight the last war you were in. These were basically built to solve the problem of dudes with PKMs laying out harassing fire beyond 5.56mm range in places like Afghanistan. Too far to reach with M4s and M249s, if your squad does have a marksman he's going to have a hard time nailing the gunners while under suppressive fire, and if I'm remembering right the Army doesn't issue M240s for dismount use.
The US military seems to have some weird aversion to fielding a decent GPMG for infantry use ever since the M60 was retired.
ChevTecGroup@reddit
Its a great too for posting up an OP on a mountainside without lugging an M2HB up there.
Angryhippo2910@reddit
Very fair, but that’s still a niche use case.
ChevTecGroup@reddit
How about on helicopters too? Most use m240 door guns. These would give you a lot more hard hitting power and range without adding a ton of weight.
reznov-where-are-you@reddit
the Light Assualt Machine gun concept is gonna do amazing things. in 50 years every lmg is gonna be .338 and weigh the same as an M4. or something idk
ZeUbermensh@reddit
The REAPR is probably the most stick-shaped MG ever made yet it is really unreasonnably cool looking
UH1Phil@reddit
MG34: Finally someone dethroned me
MonsieurCatsby@reddit
S2-200 and MG30 sitting quietly in the corner
Revolutionary-Wash88@reddit
She has been watching her figure
prettypurps@reddit
Designated Marksman Machine Gun
GU1LD3NST3RN@reddit
You laugh, but for decades the record for longest sniper kill in history was made with an M2HB.
prettypurps@reddit
It’s my preferred set up in shooters, it’s so OP lol. In arma I ran a Mk48 with suppressor and 8x variable scope
Toptomcat@reddit
Wasn't Hathcock's memoir pretty sketchy?
idkarn@reddit
Interesting read, seems sketchy indeed!
WulfeHound@reddit
*supposedly made with an M2HB
There's little if any evidence that the shot actually happened.
GunMun-ee@reddit
i’m pretty sure that one happened, but he did have a lot of his famous stories that were straight up disproven or have zero documentation or supporting witnesses. Snipers are usually built up to be mythical
WulfeHound@reddit
Are you sure?
Hakashi57@reddit
The USMC and Carlos Hathcock's spotter confirmed the shot and killed. They also have a picture of the M2HB, that Carlos Hathcock used.
https://www.coffeeordie.com/article/50-cal
Complete_Ad1862@reddit
Whitefeather🪶?
Clay_Allison_44@reddit
That's the one.
BeenJamminMon@reddit
If they can provide the advertised .50 BMG levels of range and energy in a portable package, I see the value in that. I have read that these new MGs are capable of greater effective range than the M2s because they are substantially more accurate and that these new high-efficiency, low drag projectiles maintain more energy than .50 BMG at extended ranges.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Here is the thing: Do not believe everything marketing materials say.
BeenJamminMon@reddit
How are we supposed to have a discussion if you are going to just dismiss the available information. None of us have access to these guns and I would wager a vanishingly small number have ever shot a .338 Norma Magnum.
We have seen the performance potential of these new magnum cartridges in bolt action rifles and they have proven their worth over their .50 bmg counterparts effectively.
We are forced to assume these hypothetical guns are as good as we are told in order to have a discussion. So, if these .338 Norma Magnum MGs can do what they say at the advertised weights, I think they could have great battlefield utility.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
We need not have a discussion on this.
This case is simple even if that sounds bad to some people.
None of the .338s are comparable in any way to .50 BMG. Especially not in energy.
And I laugh so much about this topic of 338s being equals or even more powerful than 50.
Yes the accuracy potential is there because of higher BCS for the 338 projectiles but maintaining more energy at range for that? At what range is that? Please provide numbers!
BloodRush12345@reddit
I have usually seen it stated as the 338 remains super sonic for longer which means it retains energy better. I don't remember the ranges and can't be bothered to look because I don't care 🤣
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
I suspect this will be a terrible conversation from now on. And I do not care what anyone wants to sell me on this topic.
.50 BMG is .50 BMG and 338s are 338s. Different animal all together and yes the .50 BMG is more powerful and will have more energy at any range than 338s.....
awsompossum@reddit
Why would you make this post posing the question if you don't want anyone to sell you on the topic. The question is not "does 338 lapua magnum exceed 50 bmg in raw ft/lbs," but "does 338 offer comparable terminal ballistics at extended ranges with greater accuracy and less weight/cost." Both rounds have an excess of energy, in terms of what is needed to incapacitate, so if the 338 does it to similar ranges, while weighing less and having less recoil, is that not a beneficial arrangement?
AyeBraine@reddit
Why did you make the post then, if it's so open and closed
And even participated in this silly discussion
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Read the comment that started this "discussion".
Let me dumb my replies down for you.
The 338s and 50 are different. They are not equals in power, the 338 cannot retain more energy at any range. The 338 can be more accurate. End.
Nobody could give me numbers about the 338s energy at range when I asked because numbers would prove I am right. But you AyeBraine I'm sure will find a way to prove I am wrong and record the data. Except you wouldn't be able to.
That is why this topic is not worth caring or talking about any more than that from my part. Sorry AyeBraine and friends.
Cast your downvotes and discuss this among yourself.
Turgzie@reddit
They retain a higher percentage of their own muzzle energy downrange compared to what the .50bmg retains. .50bmg still has more energy both at the muzzle and downrange even if it loses a higher percentage of it's energy in comparison.
Marketing will always skew the numbers and try telling you that their product is outperforming the competitor.
If you can't utilise a .50bmg then you can't utilise a .338 machine gun. So imo it's not worth the time or money.
RandomGreenArcherMan@reddit
Yeah, cautious optimism until proven otherwise
What this threat mostly is, is the zoomer version of fudd lore
The AR15/M4 and .308 has become the 1911 of millennial and zoomer fudds
Turgzie@reddit
The best weapon calibers are also what you can find readily available out in the field, which is 5.56 and 7.62 nato in the west and 5.45 and 7.62R in the east.
In practical terms no one has come up with a better alternative even if it can be done (I'm sure it can).
Solidknowledge@reddit
this is going to hurt some feelings but it's the truth
Turgzie@reddit
Bolt guns and MGs have different use cases so the ammo is not going to have the same effectiveness in both systems.
Meaning it might be good in a bolt action, but that doesn't mean it'll be better in a machine gun than current ammo.
p8ntslinger@reddit
all of this just seems like 7.62 NATO is going to be replaced. Its old af and not all that great relative to newer stuff.
ImportantBad4948@reddit
I think they have a niche. If you need more power/ range than an M240b and more portability than 50 BGM here’s some choices.
skyXforge@reddit
They make a lot of sense in my mind. In a small team I’d think it’d be nice for the guy covering to be able to make precision shots or lay down heavy fire in a pinch
CannonFodder58@reddit
One nice thing is that if any of them are adopted, military procurement could potentially lower the price of ammo.
Activision19@reddit
Eh maybe a little and the cheap stuff would be shitty ball ammo that’s still crazy expensive compared to something like 308.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Yeeees after 10 years maybe
Imdonenotreally@reddit
Mg42 at home
cryptidhunter101@reddit
The greatest limitations of 308 machine guns are range and armor penetrating abilities. The greatest limitation of 50 BMG in general is weight (both ammo and system). The 338 addresses both of these and (imo) replaces the 240 and some of the 50s in circulation. Combine this with the slow crawl towards 338 Norma as the sniper round of choice and you have a weapon system that makes everything simpler while extending the ranges and abilities of certain roles (gunner, platoon level GMG squad, gaurd posts, etc). The downside is ammo weight compared to a 308 but the roles we are discussing can plan for that fairly easily. The capabilities however are insane by comparison, triple the effective range, massively increased barrier penetration, and the ability to defeat light armored vehicles.
spacex2001@reddit
The REAPR is the coolest one here, I do hope it gets adopted one day by spec ops units.
Revolutionary-Wash88@reddit
I think they've got a few already
mp8815@reddit
It isnt meant to bridge the gap between 308 and 50 it is meant to eliminate the 50. 50bmg is very inefficient for its current role. It cant defeat most modern armored vehicles and the ones it can defeat can also be defeated by 338 norma at similar ranges for significantly less weight. It doesnt need to be as powerful as 50 because 50 is either too powerful or not powerful enough for basically everything. So with this you get a lighter gun with lighter ammo so you can get into more positions and carry more ammo for it.
CyberSoldat21@reddit
The REAPR is already adopted by some special forces units which is pretty neat
AmenBreakSample@reddit
Id say take the current Ukranian and Russian method with DSHKs, Kords and NSVs
-take hmg -take off tripod mount -give/fabricate stock, bipod and pistol grip -ammo logistics much easier -your hearing damage is not service related
Prudent-Buy9302@reddit
U.S. army tried that with the XM807, and decided to cancel it over budget&Reliability issues
Prudent-Buy9302@reddit
I always assumed the ammo would be the biggest issue, 338 is a pretty large round even volumewise. Run out of space to carry it on the body
TheEvilBlight@reddit
Body armor at a distance?
ghostinthecreek@reddit
Keep the 249 and 240 and add another guy
SemiDesperado@reddit
Seems to me like logistics is the main concern. Sure, even if a 338 is deemed to have better performance in certain situations than a 308, is it worth all the logistics headaches and cost to introduce a new bespoke caliber into the supply chain?
That_Somewhere_4593@reddit
I mean I'd take one if they were giving them out. Too bad I don't live in Switzerland.
Educational-Drag6974@reddit
Want
bazilbt@reddit
It makes sense to me. It gives you a higher effective range that can take advantage of more modern optics and small fire control systems, and it weighs much less.
kaizergeld@reddit
“There’s no such thing as “too dead”.” - Ron Spomer quoting another writer regarding heavy-for-caliber grain weights and large-game hunting cartridges.
“Whoever proposed the consideration for “overkill” is preoccupied with efficiency in a task that efficacy already completed.” - First-Nation trail guide in central Alaska on the subject of “bringing enough gun” (I forget his name at the moment. I believe he has a YouTube channel as well. I’ll edit if/when it comes to me). This quote has stuck with me longer than the source has.
“Recoil? What’s that? Some Walmart chick shampoo?” - my brother, a self-diagnosed idiot, talking up his 300WBY. He’s a dense bear of a man, but like a broken watch, he’s right at certain times.
“When “Overmatch” is considered T&S, “Overkill” doesn’t exist.” - Me.
ADGx27@reddit
That is dope as hell
Tobi_1989@reddit
I feel like there absolutely is a real and undeniable niche they can fill (providing a suppressive fire against a .30cal MG emplacement beyond its effective range without the need to bring in a heavy .50 cal MG which weights like 2-3 times the .338's weight while also providing a penetration in exceed of what the IV-class body armor can protect against), but I'm not entirely sure whether the whole chain of logistics for a whole new ammo is worth it.
It's like a whole different challenge to provide a specialized sniper team a non-standard caliber and provide it to a machine gun fire team, even if the caliber is already in use by the said snipers.
Snichblaster@reddit
Spec ops guys seem a little over obsessed at times with stopping power. The reason we even have half the wildcats we have is because of random sf veterans being like I need a bigger gun. Often times I think this is good taste but often times it comes with more drawbacks compared to using a standard caliber that the whole army uses. Not to mention having the ability of everyone running the same round helps logistics as well as ammo sharing
kwead@reddit
i wonder if any of these are being used in Ukraine? that's a very uniquely armor dependent war so i assume it would be useful. at the same time the economy of scale already exists for 50 BMG and it seems like the M2 Browning isn't going anywhere
Geopoliticalidiot@reddit
If we are to see how combat has been evolving, more firepower in a more mobile platform is always a good thing, with modern body armor, widespread use of thinly armored vehicles or technicals, the need for mobility due to static positions being targeted by drones, and precision being preferred over mass volume it makes sense why we are moving towards this option.
SomeDudeNamedDavid@reddit
I could see these being used on buggies like the Polaris MRZR to shoot at slightly larger, albeit lightly armored or unarmored vehicles as a last ditch measure when drones aren't available or unable to be used, but that's about it.
Under most circumstances, .338 being fired at 500-600 rpm is either too much or not enough, and carrying a gun of that size for even a few minutes does more harm than good.
plyingpotato@reddit
I get the point and I think the utility the bridge in capabilities offers is neat, I'm just wondering how often that utility is actually required? If people who actually know about this stuff decide that it's useful, power to them, but insofar I've just seen a lot of humming and hawing by the people who should know about cases this concept might be useful in.
I get no one can predict the future, and until Raytheon develops a commercial grade crystal ball folks are just going to have to give their best educated guesses, but this situation feels like the people trying to sell everyone on this idea are dreaming up situations where it could be useful instead of pointing to situations (from the US military's own past experiences or the experience of partners currently fighting) where it would have been useful.
I might have missed where people did provide exactly that, I'm not trying to say it didn't happen, but I haven't seen that rationale be provided yet.
elchsaaft@reddit
This will drive the price of ammo down eventually, I'm all for it.
_That_Guy_in_AZ_@reddit
Depends on their cases uses and if they are limited meaning unable to bring in an M2 HB.
Lots of clerks, mechanics, supply, truck drivers, and civie enthusiasts like to argue these things about the current affairs of guns and equipment, and former mil like to do the same. Both groups are very out of touch with reality. There's a good reason certain things are done or is chosen, some being flukes like the M7 and M8 or the SCAR's. But this makes sense when needing reach and is limited in logistics or there's a need for this at certain levels.
Forward_Young2874@reddit
DsHKA in a bag?
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
No. And the DShk did not need to be carried in a bag to get hauled up to the mountains.
Panzerdivision7@reddit
Welcome back MG34
AutoModerator@reddit
Understand the rules
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.