[ARCHIVED THREAD] - General Dynamics .338 machine gun (Page 1 of 7)
Posted: 9/25/2013 9:01:58 AM EDT
|
Did a dupe search didnt find anything.
Looks pretty bad ass. http://kitup.military.com/2013/09/gds-long-range-machine-gun.html 
|
|
Quoted:
Purpose? As opposed to our current LMGs in 5.56 and 7.62? Quoted:
Purpose? As opposed to our current LMGs in 5.56 and 7.62? The LWMMG fires a 300 grain .338 caliber bullet and is capable of effective fire out to 1,700 meters, compared to the M240 round which is effective out to 1,100 meters.
Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2013/09/gds-long-range-machine-gun.html#ixzz2fvQoMHbn Kit Up! |
338 Nora Mag? Damn sweet rig right there . What a hoot to shoot ......do want ! "It puts a lot of energy on the target; it doesn’t compare to the .50 cal which is a 650 grain bullet, but we are not trying to replace the .50 cal,” the GD official said. The LWMMG isn’t being marketed as a replacement for the M240 either even though it’s about 4 pounds lighter. The heavier, .338NM ammo weighs about 9 pounds for every 100-round box. One hundred rounds of 7.62mm weights about seven pounds. "You can mount this anywhere an M240 will mount,” he said. "You can put effective fire on targets at extended ranges, and that is why we chose that round; we built the weapon around the round.” The plan was to build the LWMMG in the same round as U.S. Special Operations Command’s new Precision Sniper Rifle, which Remington is now building in .338 Lapua magnum, GD officials said. While the company is pleased with the performance of the shorter .338NM cartridge, it would not be difficult to convert it to .338 Lapua, GD officials maintain.   |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Purpose? As opposed to our current LMGs in 5.56 and 7.62? The LWMMG fires a 300 grain .338 caliber bullet and is capable of effective fire out to 1,700 meters, compared to the M240 round which is effective out to 1,100 meters.
Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2013/09/gds-long-range-machine-gun.html#ixzz2fvQoMHbn Kit Up! Max effective range for the 240 is 1800 meters. |
|
Quoted:
and to rebarrel in other news i have a friend currently manufacturing a .50BMG 1911A1 conversion... Yes, a 1911A1 in .50BMG..  Quoted:
Quoted:
that's gonna be hella expensive to feed and to rebarrel in other news i have a friend currently manufacturing a .50BMG 1911A1 conversion... Yes, a 1911A1 in .50BMG.. I don't usually befriend masochists, but I like 1911s.
|
|
.338 LM makes a shitload of sense in an MG platform... even more so, IMHO, than in a precision rifle platform.
If manufactured in large quantities (which it would be if chambered in a bunch of MGs), .338LM wouldn't be that much more expensive than 7.62X51.... economy of scale FTW! |
|
Quoted: Max effective range for the 240 is 1800 meters. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Purpose? As opposed to our current LMGs in 5.56 and 7.62? The LWMMG fires a 300 grain .338 caliber bullet and is capable of effective fire out to 1,700 meters, compared to the M240 round which is effective out to 1,100 meters. Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2013/09/gds-long-range-machine-gun.html#ixzz2fvQoMHbn Kit Up! Max effective range for the 240 is 1800 meters. |
|
Quoted:
and to rebarrel in other news i have a friend currently manufacturing a .50BMG 1911A1 conversion... Yes, a 1911A1 in .50BMG.. Quoted:
Quoted:
that's gonna be hella expensive to feed and to rebarrel in other news i have a friend currently manufacturing a .50BMG 1911A1 conversion... Yes, a 1911A1 in .50BMG.. A 50 BMG 1911A1 is.... mindblowing. |
| Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. |
|
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. You're leaving out the MG itself though. The M2 is a big mutha... the .338LM can be squeezed into a much, much more portable platform. |
|
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. Sometimes weight savings are more important that cost savings. Light weight is expensive. |
|
More range for less weight.
right now the Taliban and NATO forces are equal in the MG department as far as range. pkm and 240 even out. this gives me "stand off" 600m where I can shoot him and he can't shoot me. this is the shit that sells itself. and I don't have to resupply or carry 50 cal to do it. |
|
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? |
| its a weapon that can do alot more damage to a structure or vehicle than 7.62x51 but it doesn't weigh 120 lbs. the problem with 50s is they aren't portable and every time someone tries to build a light weight one, the 50 rounds tears it up, they don't last. this is a good compromise. |
|
Quoted: A 50 BMG 1911A1 is.... mindblowing. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: that's gonna be hella expensive to feed and to rebarrel in other news i have a friend currently manufacturing a .50BMG 1911A1 conversion... Yes, a 1911A1 in .50BMG.. A 50 BMG 1911A1 is.... mindblowing. Not to derail, but where the fuck is the build thread on this??!?!?!?! |
|
Quoted:
you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? An M2 and its tripod is, what, 90-100lbs? |
|
Quoted:
This. And the 338 LM would be much cheaper and more practical than 50 BMG. Quoted:
Quoted:
If manufactured in large quantities (which it would be if chambered in a bunch of MGs), .338LM wouldn't be that much more expensive than 7.62X51.... economy of scale FTW! This. And the 338 LM would be much cheaper and more practical than 50 BMG. This. And tt should become cheaper for the civilian market also, if adapted. |
|
Quoted:
An M2 and its tripod is, what, 90-100lbs? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? An M2 and its tripod is, what, 90-100lbs? that's without the tripod. and no ammo |
|
Quoted: Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338.  |
|
Quoted:
you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? Not in A-stan, but the 7.62 does fine.......after that you pull out sniper gear/air support or artillery. This is a novelty being promoted by gun enthusiasts......nothing more |
|
Quoted: This. And tt should become cheaper for the civilian market also, if adapted. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If manufactured in large quantities (which it would be if chambered in a bunch of MGs), .338LM wouldn't be that much more expensive than 7.62X51.... economy of scale FTW! This. And the 338 LM would be much cheaper and more practical than 50 BMG. This. And tt should become cheaper for the civilian market also, if adapted. Cool. I'll start brainstorming an AR10 in 338 Normag  |
|
Quoted:
The two phrases 'Cost savings' and 'Machine Gun' dont really belong in the same sentence to begin with
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338.
Only when the Army is getting trigger time........those pogues shoot at nothing A LOT |
|
Quoted:
that's without the tripod. and no ammo Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? An M2 and its tripod is, what, 90-100lbs? that's without the tripod. and no ammo Wait, all of a sudden, ARFCOM's "LOL work out more you faggit" don't work? I'm disappoint 
|
|
Quoted:
Not in A-stan, but the 7.62 does fine.......after that you pull out sniper gear/air support or artillery. This is a novelty being promoted by gun enthusiasts......nothing more Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? Not in A-stan, but the 7.62 does fine.......after that you pull out sniper gear/air support or artillery. This is a novelty being promoted by gun enthusiasts......nothing more lulz. so where did you hump a 240? |
|
Quoted:
This. And tt should become cheaper for the civilian market also, if adapted. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If manufactured in large quantities (which it would be if chambered in a bunch of MGs), .338LM wouldn't be that much more expensive than 7.62X51.... economy of scale FTW! This. And the 338 LM would be much cheaper and more practical than 50 BMG. This. And tt should become cheaper for the civilian market also, if adapted. Mass produced 338LM would be awesome even if it was 2MOA ammo like most M80 equivalent. 300 grains and supersonic past 1200 meters?
|
|
Quoted:
lulz. so where did you hump a 240? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? Not in A-stan, but the 7.62 does fine.......after that you pull out sniper gear/air support or artillery. This is a novelty being promoted by gun enthusiasts......nothing more lulz. so where did you hump a 240? You are trying hard bro..........If I had the choice my gunner would have a 50 over this. You know we are mechanized. If you are truly light infantry you aren't lugging this (ETA this being the 338 machine gun) anyway. |
|
Quoted:
that's without the tripod. and no ammo Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? An M2 and its tripod is, what, 90-100lbs? that's without the tripod. and no ammo the entire system without ammo is 128 lbs. gun reciever is 62, tripod is 44, barrel is 22. this does not count the pintle and t & e |
|
Quoted:
You are trying hard bro..........If I had the choice my gunner would have a 50 over this. You know we are mechanized. If you are truly light infantry you aren't lugging this (ETA this being the 338 machine gun) anyway. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. you ever humped an mg in Afghanistan? Not in A-stan, but the 7.62 does fine.......after that you pull out sniper gear/air support or artillery. This is a novelty being promoted by gun enthusiasts......nothing more lulz. so where did you hump a 240? You are trying hard bro..........If I had the choice my gunner would have a 50 over this. You know we are mechanized. If you are truly light infantry you aren't lugging this (ETA this being the 338 machine gun) anyway. This is gonna be fun.
|
|
Quoted: Only when the Army is getting trigger time........those pogues shoot at nothing A LOT Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doesn't make a lot of sense. The 338 Lapua is great b/c it's more accurate then a 50 BMG. I'm all for continuing to develop our sniping off it. In a hitt'em long and far machine gun the 50 is superior. 7.62 NATO to 50 BMG serves us well. When talking about cost savings and machine guns you should never include the 338. Only when the Army is getting trigger time........those pogues shoot at nothing A LOT  |
|
Did they finally put a flash suppressor on it?
Smith Enterprises makes a Vortex for .338 that should work with this thing, if anyone at GD needs an idea. Definitely want a flash suppressor on that thing. .338 Norma Mag at night cyclic with a plain muzzle is going to be a fucking flamethrower. Or maybe that's the idea?
Anyway, I find that gun to be cool as hell, and fully support its fielding. |