The purpose of the LMG-M is to bridge the gap between the M2 and M240 machine guns. The program’s objectives are to deliver a man-portable system that has overmatch capability over opposing enemy 7.62x54R machine guns. The LMG-M’s performance should be close to that of a .50 caliber machine gun in terms of engagement distance, however, the smaller 300-grain projectiles used in the 338 NM will not have the kinetic energy of a 660+ grain projectile fired from a 50 BMG. In addition, there is a growing need for lightweight systems for aircraft and side-by-side type vehicles. In many cases, these heavy gun systems exceed the total system weight (weapon, ammunition feed systems, and ammunition) allowable for operation on these vehicles. They need a lighter-weight option going forward.

To understand the program’s objectives, let’s take a closer look at the systems the LMG-M is designed to replace.

OLD FAITHFUL – THE M2 MACHINE GUN

The LMG-M system is designed to replace John M. Browning’s masterpiece, the .50 caliber/12.7x99mm M2 (“Ma Deuce”) heavy machine gun. This iconic weapon has dominated the battlefield for the last 91 years. It’s been in service since 1933, with no end in sight. “Replace” is probably not the right word. As mentioned, the U.S. M2 will be around for the foreseeable future. The .338 LMG-M is going to replace it in some applications. Why? Because the LMG-M is going to be around 25 pounds versus the 84 pounds of the M2. That’s nearly a 50-pound difference. A complete M2 system including optics, M3 tripod, spare barrel (required because of heat issues), and 400 rounds of ammunition weighs 288 pounds. This is clearly not a single-man portable system; it takes a small team to utilize this weapon.

In a vehicle situation where 4000 rounds are likely present, you now have 1320 pounds of ammo. This additional weight is not an issue in an Abrahams tank, however, it is a no-go for smaller vehicles and modern side-by-sides. Next, of course, is aircraft. This system is far too heavy for many small aircraft and helicopters. I’m sure drones will come into the conversation here too. The M2 and 1320 pounds of ammo is probably a no-go scenario for a typical drone, however, a lighter LMG-M with lightweight ammunition is a different story.

The LMG-M concept is man-portable and considerably lighter, a boon not only for infantry, but for other weight-conscious applications such as in aircraft, boats, or vehicles. The weight of the machine gun and ammo makes a very compelling argument for a lighter-weight weapon and ammo.

LIGHT AND PORTABLE – THE M240 MACHINE GUN

To go a little deeper into history, we need to also discuss the U.S. M240 machine gun in 7.62x51mm. This is the little brother to the .50 cal M2. The LMG-M will become the middle child in the family and have middle child syndrome to boot. The LMG-M is also going to partially replace the M240. Just as with the M2, we foresee the M240 being around for a very long time. The M240 fires the 7.62x51mm cartridge. The M240 has been in service since 1977 and was an upgrade for the prior M60 that was in service since 1957. This system is man-portable and vehicle- and aircraft-mountable. A complete system for this weapon including optics, M192 tripod, spare barrel, and 800 rounds of ammunition is 101 pounds, making it very possible to carry in a multi-person team.

THE OVERMATCH PROBLEM

In the U.S. war in Afghanistan, the troops on the ground had a major problem. These teams would come up against the enemy with the non-standard PKM machine gun firing the 7.62x54mm R caliber (R= rimmed for the protruding rim from original cartridge designs to be easier to extract) that has an effective range of 1500 meters. Troops equipped with this weapon had overmatch capability on U.S. and NATO forces. This has been a known issue for decades, however, the U.S. has been involved in few conflicts where it was a major issue, as it is in the open deserts of Afghanistan.

The overmatch issue is probably driving about 60-70% of the need for the LMG-M. The other 30-40% is the need to reduce the weight of the current machine gun for use in numerous vehicles, boats, and aircraft. A modern, lightweight attack vehicle could not handle carrying a .50 caliber system with 1000 rounds of ammo. Included in that percentage is the capability to be single-man portable, where something in the target weight range would be mission-changing.

Since we are talking machine guns, it’s appropriate to include in our comparison the Soviet-era PK machine gun our allied forces face in the field. The original PK has been in service since 1961. It was designed by probably the world’s number two machine gun designer (after Browning), Mikhail Kalashnikov. The improved PKM variant went into Soviet service in 1969. There are nearly eight variants. It has seen action in as many as 36 conflicts around the globe. The fully equipped weapon is estimated to weigh 65 pounds with bipod, optic, spare barrel, and 800 rounds of ammunition.

THE OBJECTIVE OF SOCOM’s LMG-M PROGRAM

The objectives of the LMG-M program are as follows; to supply a lightweight medium machine gun with the following capabilities and features:

• Weight less than 31.1 pounds (threshold) and (objective) 23 pounds with fully equipped with rail, handle, bipod, buttstock, and suppressor.
• Length less than 61 inches (threshold) and (objective) 56 pounds with fully equipped with rail, handle, bipod, buttstock, and suppressor.
• Barrel changes without tools in less than 10 seconds (threshold).
• Minimum velocity of 2400 fps.
• Trigger pull between 8 and 16 pounds.
• Average mean radius (accuracy): single shot not to exceed 6 MOA (threshold) and 3 MOA (objective)at 100 meters.
• Cyclic rate of 450-750 rounds per minute (threshold) and 550 +/- 25 rpm (objective).
• Capable of 125 rounds at a maximum rate of fire without catastrophic failure both unsuppressed and suppressed.
• Recommended 1:8-inch twist.
• 8,000 round barrel life (threshold) and 15,000 (objective).

Keeping in mind that the U.S. government often asks for near-impossible things, it’s doubtful that any weapon will meet all of these criteria 100%. Then it becomes a guessing game about which of the criteria is deemed more important. For example, would a shorter weapon that is lighter, however less accurate, be preferred over a longer, heavier, and more accurate weapon? How much weight and length are worth the potential sacrifice? The government typically uses a matrix. The scoring parameters and the value of particular scores can only be guessed, depending on the winners and losers.

THE CURRENT CONTENDERS

The LMG-M contract competitors are (in alphabetical order):

• True Velocity
• Ohio Ordnance Works
• SIG Sauer

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROGRAM

Back in 2020, SIG Sauer’s MMG 338 passed safety certification and the company delivered a small quantity (estimated at 8 to 12 units) to SOCOM. These were early weapons to evaluate. It seems like there was a period when the manufacturers were willing to let the government evaluate the weapons while they still had time to make changes. It appears that, over the last several months, the competitors have been more secretive about the status of their weapons.

The program was held up waiting for ammunition to be used to evaluate the machine guns. The delay was due to projectile issues, COVID-19-related issues, and vendor changes. The government believed that they needed their ammunition to fairly evaluate the machine guns. This is probably a good idea in general, as most of the manufacturers might have their weapons function with ammunition of their choosing and maybe not function as well with another type of 338 ammunition. However, the links are different for all three manufacturers’ weapons. However, I’m told that all the links are close enough that they “should” run in the competitors’ weapons. Nonetheless, no one is going to take that chance in a competitive environment.

During the SOFWEEK conference In May 2023, Lt. Col. John “Tosh” Lancaster, program manager for U.S. Special Operations Command’s lethality acquisitions, told Defense News that the lightweight medium machine gun is scheduled to field in fiscal 2026. He also told the outlet that SOCOM is still actively looking for the accessories and suite of ammunition needed for the weapon.

Back on February 7, 2024, the competitors delivered three weapons. As of April 30th, 2024, the competitors will need to deliver a total of 12 weapons for a 10,000-round endurance test. Supplied kits included a conversion barrel to 7.62x51mm and testing for this was an “indeterminate” amount. I assume this means more than the 10,000 338 Norma Mag rounds. They also were required to submit 125,000 bare links to run the unlinked 338 Multipurpose ammunition delivered by UDC USA in support of this contract back in 2022-2023. The manufacturers are also to provide the complete technical data package (TDP).

Now, here’s a breakdown of the companies and weapons that have been submitted to SOCOM for its LMG-M contract.

TRUE VELOCITY RM 338

True Velocity, known for its lightweight ammunition, has the oldest design in the field. The company is in Dallas, TX. Their weapon is the RM 338 for Recoil Mitigation.

The True Velocity contract entry was originally designed and built by the General Dynamics Saco facility back in 2012. To GD’s credit, it saw a capability gap between the 7.62×51 M240 and the non-standard PK machine gun. In around a year, the company developed its weapon, an amazingly fast task for a big, slow-turning ship like GD. However, GD was not rewarded for its Herculean effort. The product of its labor was on display at trade shows for several years while the overmatch issue was hotly debated through 2016. Then, the weapon went out of the public eye for a year or two. Once SOCOM started talking about the LMG-M requirement in around 2017, GD’s machine gun was back in the spotlight. It was part of a Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) Irregular Warfare project from several years ago.

True Velocity acquired the rights to GD’s weapon system in the 2021 timeframe and, soon after, started a sister company that you might have seen associated with the company’s machine development gun effort, Lone Star Future Weapons. This is more of a holding company set up by True Velocity to house the machine gun’s intellectual property.

This weapon visually resembles a slightly upsized M240 Bravo. This is a tried-and-true weapon system. The receiver assembly, cover plate, barrel assembly, and trigger housing assembly all look similar to the M240. The recoil mitigation system is impressive. True Velocity is proud that an operator can fire the RM 338 on targets at 1500 meters and continuously see the point of impact. They say they can also walk and fire the weapon. It’s an amazing weapon and is a serious contender. Its age makes it a little less interesting because it’s been around nearly forever. However, its maturity is a great thing for conservative, risk-averse government selection teams.

The weapon, fully equipped for combat with optics, an M192 tripod, a spare barrel, and 500 rounds of linked ammunition weights 102.7 pounds. Note, this is the weight with the 300-grain projectile, while SOCOM’s multi-purpose ammunition is 272 grains. Running the government ammo will reduce the overall load by two to three pounds for the 500-round load-out.

I had the pleasure of firing the True Velocity RM 338 in Las Vegas in April 2022. It’s an impressive weapon. The recoil was very minimal. It cycled like a champ. It seemed accurate; however, we were not shooting on paper, so accuracy was hard to gauge. It feels very familiar to standard machine gun designs. I’m told that it’s had millions of rounds fired through it over the last 12 years. It’s going to work, and work well.

An interesting point is their connection with polymer ammunition. SOCOM originally expressed an interest in lightweight ammo to go along with the weapon. They have placed this desire on hold for now. To meet government standards, qualification of the lightweight ammo could take years (or decades) depending on the approach.

As a salient aside, three weeks ago, True Velocity filed a lawsuit against SIG Sauer in Vermont’s Chittenden Superior Court alleging SIG Sauer stole True Velocity’s recoil mitigation concept by hiring its former employees and used it in its SIG-MMG 338 SOCOM LMG-M submission.

OHIO ORDNANCE WORKS REAPR

Ohio Ordnance Works (OOW), located in Charon, Ohio, was the third company to enter the competition. It specializes in making numerous machine guns, including the M240 and the M2. So, the company is highly qualified and has been around since 1992, pointing to them as a well-established, reliable contractor in the arms manufacturing space. This is a major move for OOW since they traditionally manufacture older designed weapons. Their efforts started before 2020 when patents were filed.

The machine gun is called the Recoil Enhanced Automatic Precision Rifle or REAPR, for short, and its design is pretty impressive. The patented sliding feed tray is unique and purposeful. It’s so unique that it is going to need a lot of testing for the government to feel comfortable with it. It’s probably a game-changer. Having tons of optics mounted and never moving them is a huge deal. Per OOW staff, this gives them the most rail space of any of the guns in the competition. The other big win is the breakdown into three pieces to be backpack-carriable. The barrel is just under 25 inches (and would be the longest part), so we are not talking about a giant pack, here. That makes this a one-man system, with a small load of linked ammunition.

I got behind a gun at a special event in Las Vegas in April 2022. It’s really impressive. I know they have fired a ton of ammo over those last few years, so they are trying hard to catch up to the time the other systems have in the space. It seems like they have closed the gap. They fully released the weapon as the REAPR at SHOT 2024. This was strategic to ensure none of its competitors could copy anything from the weapon before the submission was due a very short time later. It is currently capable and has been fired in 338 Norma Mag and 7.62x51mm.

SIG SAUER SIG-MMG 338

SIG Sauer, Inc. was the second company to enter the competition with its SIG-MMG 338. It has two New Hampshire locations for weapon manufacturing and an Arkansas facility for ammunition manufacturing. SIG Sauer was founded in 1976 in Germany. The original SIG Sauer has undergone several corporate transformations and is now two independently operated brands owned by the German management group L&O Holding; the small Swiss manufacturer, SIG Sauer AG, and the much larger American firearm manufacturer, SIG Sauer, Inc. All references to SIG Sauer in this article point to the American company, SIG Sauer, Inc.

The weapon seems like a cross between an M240 and other modern SIG weapons. It does have a short-stroke gas piston system and a SIG proprietary recoil reduction system. In a deviation from the standard M240 style cover, the feed tray cover is a side-opening. This has advantages over non-moving optics. It has other modern features like a folding stock, a quick-change barrel, and a compact suppressor.

SIG had already provided samples to the government in early 2020. It’s been demonstrating the weapon at numerous range events around the country. I was able to shoot the weapon in Las Vegas in April 2022. It’s an impressive weapon with reasonable recoil. Unfortunately, the machine gun’s accuracy was hard to evaluate since we were not shooting paper targets. The gun functioned flawlessly. The only complaint I have concerns the suppressor and all the gas blowing back at the shooter. This can be addressed with a different suppressor. All the demos and public exposure have SIG’s effort positioned in the early lead of the competition. Their SIG-MMG 338 has had lots of public exposure in the last few years.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

This will be a tight competition. It will not be as well-publicized (because of the limited field of expertise in machine guns) as the 6.8 NSGW competition, nor will its outcome have the battlefield impact of replacing the entire suite of squad-level weaponry. However, it will still have a large impact on the way the battle is conducted in the future.

Why would True Velocity win? This weapon has 12 years of extensive General Dynamics-style development, testing, and evaluation. It has the longest history and the most amount of rounds down the barrel. If SOCOM wants tried and true, tested, and run to its limits again and again – this is the choice. If SOCOM is really interested in fielding lightweight ammo, True Velocity’s ability to leverage its lightweight ammunition may give it an edge in the competition. There are very few lightweight ammunition options in 338 Norma Mag.

Why would Ohio Ordnance Works win? Its very innovative design, reliability, and extensive experience with belt-fed machine guns are the company’s hallmarks. There are a lot of very nice features, like the sliding feed tray that allows nearly any optic to be placed upon it. Also, there is the one-handed barrel change. Are these “unlisted” items enough to sway SOCOM?

Why would SIG Sauer win? It has a solidly performing weapon and a compelling history of producing weapons under military contracts. It also has a history of treating its major U.S. government contracts as loss leaders, pricing them aggressively and leaving thin margins that it offsets with profits on commercial, international, and other agency sales.

CLOSING

The biggest winner will be the U.S. warrior. Some don’t see the benefit of this system. I 110% see it changing the way warfare takes place. Imagine a single soldier or operator being able to sneak up and lay suppressed suppressive fire on targets 3000+ meters away, then pack up and be gone before the enemy has any idea where it came from. Then repeat 30 minutes later. What it will do for aircraft will be similarly impressive. Longer distances with a lighter weight system.

Some minigun systems may get switched out to the 338 LMG-M due to the weight savings (50 pounds), lesser cost, and greater downrange effects. It’s a long shot. However, it could happen. This will probably be impacted by the future of the 338 Norma Magnum suite of ammunition and the capabilities it provides.

It will be impressive. It will make a difference. It will be the future. It might have 90 years of service life like the M2. This future date is 2114. They should have phasers or laser guns by then, however, I’m sure someone back in 1933 thought we’d have lasers in 2024.

When people think of the latest Russian small arms development, they naturally think of the AK-12. The design attempted to bring the venerable Kalashnikov pattern into the post-9/11 world of rails, optics, and force multiplier accessories. Though this could be done with the help of third-party accessories on the old AK platform, the AK-12 made the gun out-of-the-box ready for all the gadgets promised from Russia’s defense budget. However, anyone familiar with military procurement and weapons deployment will know that often the shiny and new platforms have to wait for production to ramp up, for budgets to be finalized, and more often, for the “good enough” older platforms to break down.

For this reason, when the war in Ukraine began, I was skeptical of the AK-12 having any significant use. The AK-74m and AK-100 series of weapons were my best guess as the most common weapons to be used. Without access to classified or insider information, I used the old Cold War yardstick of looking at the May 9^th Victory Day parades. In the years leading up to the 2022 full-scale invasion, only specialized units like airborne and naval infantry groups goose-stepped their way across Red Square with rifles strapped across their stripped chests. More troubling, or perhaps reassuring depending on your point of view, parts kits spirited into the United States and began to show that the AK-12 as the platform was not such a step forward as the Russians were hoping. Though the weapon is not the most common platform over there, it surprised me in how often it was captured by Ukrainian forces, or otherwise photographed by Russians themselves. Ukrainian forces routinely fight with captured AK-12s as a stopgap for dwindling Soviet stock, and latent production of Ukraine’s own AR platform, the UAR. The evidence shows that I was proven wrong. Russia has made a concerted effort to put the AK-12 into as many hands as possible, and what is more, the Russians are learning lessons from its deployment.

In response to these lessons, and possibly even criticism from international experts online, the weapon progresses through three iterations of the rifle: the model 2015, the 2022, and the 2023. Simultaneously, Tula, another famed site of Russian arms production, and Kalashnikov Concern have started to work on three new cartridges. In typical Russian fashion, Russia tends to copy a good design when they see one (just look at their automotive industry over the last ninety years). One possible new cartridge, the 6.02x41mm seems to compete with the US 6.8x51mm, as the US reconsiders its own formula for cartridge capability for its new generation of standard-issue small arms.

The 5.45×39 cartridge, which the AK-12 and the AK-74 platforms use, was its own response to the American use of .556 as a military cartridge in Vietnam- a high-speed micro-caliber round designed, let’s be honest, for varmint hunting, which could deliver high-energy onto a human size target. As everyone naturally remembers from high school physics, force equals mass times acceleration. Acceleration, of course, is speed squared. That means you get a big force multiplier for going faster while if you increase only mass, you get less bang for your buck than if you increase acceleration. Things get complicated in the real world, though. Things that are light also slow down with greater ease. Likewise, inertia also means that things with more mass take more energy to get going, but also take more effort to stop. It’s why we use high-mass uranium ammunition to break through tank armor like butter. Similarly for soft targets, you’d like a round that ideally passes its energy into the target without penetrating, or else that energy is lost in the pass-through. Okay, the physics lesson is over, but the Russians have been paying attention to this balancing act between speed and mass that every weapons engineer has been dealing with ever since forever.

In 2020, the Tula Cartridge Plant and Kalashnikov Concern began running the numbers on 6.7x45mm, 6.5x39mm and 6.02x41mm. The ideal round would need to have a manageable recoil impulse for automatic fire but still meet penetrating action values. After all, the goal of the round is to deal with modern body armor-clad targets, without being unmanageable for basic conscripts. The initiative selected the 6.02×41 as the most optimal candidate. To compare the round to 5.45×39 and 7.62×39, the round has superior kinetic energy at extended distances, maintaining armor-piercing capability up to 900 meters, according to Kalashnikov Concerns own publications. This is due to the bullet shape and improved external ballistic capabilities. Once again, the mission set of the cartridge matches the American 6.8x51mm, which similarly attempts to bring full-powered ballistics to intermediate cartridges to defeat Chinese and Russian body armor threats. However, this new Russian cartridge would need a weapon.

The AK-22 and SVCh:

To test the potential of the 6.02x41mm caliber, Kalashnikov Concern has modified a standard AK-12 model into the AK-22, showcasing its adaptability and versatility. AKs surprisingly accommodate re-chambering well. Additionally, the SVCh (Sniper Rifle, Large Caliber), which seeks to replace the SVD Dragunov, has been chambered for the 6.02x41mm cartridge. As an aside, there is talk of developing a new cartridge to replace the aging 7.62x54R. This could lead to the creation of a new general-purpose machine gun (GPMG) to rival the nascent U.S. 338 Norma Magnum lightweight medium machine gun program. These two short and long platforms allow for ballistic testing and overall weapon handling for the round. Though the SVCh platform, due to barrel length and inherent accuracy, is likely to see the top-level performance of the round, the Russians (to date) have avoided a return to “battle rifles” for standard-issue military arms.  Kalashnikov Concern recently completed a three-year contract to supply AK-12 rifles to the Russian Ministry of Defense, reportedly ahead of schedule. There is certainly a need for more rifles as the war progresses and resources are lost.

The future of the 6.02x41mm cartridge and the potential adoption of the AK-22 and SVCh for special military operations in Ukraine remain uncertain but intriguing possibilities. Will the Russians change horses mid-stream or will they introduce an experimental program as they did for the 7.62×39 in the waning days of the Second World War? History will show how these discussions will play out.

One critical consideration for the future of Russian assault rifles is ensuring that new developments outperform their predecessors. The AK-12 faced criticism for not significantly surpassing its predecessor and lacking widespread adoption of optics. Russia will certainly take notice of these past experiences, such as the U.S. Advanced Combat Rifle program, to create competitive offerings like the Vortex XM157. This will likely cause some hesitancy in adopting the cartridge any time soon. Beyond the AK-12, Russian firearm developers are considering the AM-17 series, Russia’s monolithic upper receiver rifle, which offers compact and full-size rifles in various calibers, with a focus on reducing weight and improving ergonomics. The platform takes on the challenge of the AK’s rigid receiver design and limited optic mounting options over the top of the receiver. The AKV-521, described as “the 500 Series AK,” addresses these challenges as well, radically changing the AK’s function to incorporate a lower receiver hinge vaguely reminiscent of an AR-15.  The RPL-20, a belt-fed light machine gun, rechambered in 6.02x41mm, could potentially fill the role of the US M249 or the new XM250. However, such a transition would require doctrinal changes in how Russia deploys and employs light machine guns and GPMGs.

Russia is entering an exploratory phase of weapon design, learning from its “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine, and striving for continuous improvement in its small arms and equipment. It remains to be seen what path it will take, but the development of the AK-12 and exploration of new calibers, along with potential alternatives like the AM-17 and AKV-521, demonstrate Russia’s commitment to staying competitive in an ever-evolving global arms race. As the future unfolds, the Russian firearms industry will play a crucial role in the nation’s defense capabilities.

Up until quite recently, the 338 Lapua Magnum cartridge was the preeminent sniper caliber with 338 Norma Magnum looking ready to surpass its popularity. The war in Ukraine caused a resurgence in the Lapua caliber, gifting it a stay of execution, of sorts. There were numerous weapons systems available at the time sniper ammunition was needed, and 338 Lapua Mag fit the bill. It’s unclear how much this spike may add to its life span, though. Some say a decade or more. Regardless, the long-term implications for the round’s future use my today’s militaries are the same. 338 Norma Magnum is set to take the Lapua’s place on the throne of tactical long-range cartridges.

This article will dig a little deeper and provide more information about round’s ascension.

Let’s start with what’s included in the 338 NM kingdom and what is not. Its will eventually reign over the future of U.S. military and law enforcement sniper applications. It will not be the king of civilian long-range precision competitions like “The King of Two Miles.”  It does not have the necessary powder capacity to dominate that domain. That arena will be left to larger platform cartridges for the foreseeable future. It does have a chance at becoming the King of One Mile… however, its little brother, 300 Norma Magnum, seems to have a better shot in this dominion since there’s no need for projectile payload in a target shooting competition.

The jury is out on whether the 338 NM will be the king of international military and law enforcement, as these groups fully adopted the 338 Lapua Mag (however, the U.S. didn’t). Eventually, in 10 to 20 years, the 338 NM will replace the 338 Lapua Mag in any holdout groups or countries. This is because the 338 NM can do everything the 338 Lapua Mag can do, but in a slightly smaller package. This includes smaller rifle actions and chambers, slightly less brass, and slightly less propellants. This might be irrelevant to the individual shooter, but it’s significant to defense departments when they’re paying for millions of rounds.

SO WHY THE CHANGE IN THE U.S.?

The U.S. has held .50 caliber and 300 Winchester Magnum as the prior sniper caliber of choice.  There was a brief glimmer of hope for 338 Lapua Mag in 2014, when Remington Defense won the U.S. Department of Defense’s Precision Sniper Rifle (The Mk 21) competition that fired 338 Lapua Mag, 300 Winchester Magnum, and 308 Winchester. This program failed. However, military and law enforcement officers need a man-portable, robust system that can reach extreme distances in the range of 2500 to 3000 meters. The .50 caliber could meet that requirement; however, the weight of the weapon and the ammunition were and are always a challenge.

In addition, the .50 caliber faced some political stigma as being “overkill”, especially in LE and other applications. The .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun (50 BMG) started its life as a military machine gun round that was anti-material and anti-personnel. Ronnie Barrett turned the .50 caliber into a shoulder fired weapon in the 1980’s. His modern rifle design and muzzle break made shooting the .50 caliber manageable. However, the 660-grain payload is devastating on human targets and in any scenario besides combat the risk of extensive collateral damage to people and property is typically deemed too great for the round to be considered in any civilian roles, and even in some military roles, as well. 

WHAT ABOUT 300 WIN MAG?

Historically, 300 Win Mag has struggled with longer distances, and it’s a belted magnum. Belted magnums headspace off the belt at the base of the cartridge instead of the shoulder. Headspacing from the shoulder is universally considered to give consistently better accuracy. In addition, the 300 Win Mag is only a .30 caliber bullet, and it does not have the ability to go up to 300 grains, as the .338 bullets can and do. This reduces kinetic energy and limits the round’s use in the destruction of vehicles. It also has a major impact on armor piercing capabilities in 300 grains with a tungsten core.  Taking out an engine block is well within the scope of a 300 grain Armor Piercing projectile. 

Moreover, the new Barrett MK 22 MRAD (Kudos again to Ronnie) is the next generation sniper weapon system, and it comes chambered in 338 NM, 300 NM, and 308 Win. This is the first weapon that has been chambered in the 338 NM for the U.S. armed forces. In addition, the Army/SOCOM is ordering these rifle systems by the truckload. Barrett’s initial contract from the Army is nearly $50m for around 2,800 weapon systems. This contract (W15QKN21F0192) was awarded in March 2021. Around $8m was funded with the base award and the rest will be rolled out over the term of the 5-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract. The contract is forecasted to be completed in March 2026. This does not include all the weapons that will be ordered by other (three-letter) agencies. Under the contract, weapons will probably be delivered to the Army, Navy, Air Force, USMC, and SOCOM, as the Army is typically the central buying hub for the various services. In addition, the U.S. Army recently awarded a 5-year, $157m contract to Sig Sauer for ammunition in both the 300 NM and 338 NM calibers.

SOCOM’S LATEST MACHINE GUN

The Lightweight Medium Machine Gun (LWMMG) in 338 Norma Mag has been around since 2012. General Dynamics created this next generation weapon system to get .50 cal performance but at the weight of a standard machine gun. General Dynamics was ahead of their time with a great idea. Unfortunately, their effort was unsuccessful and was basically forgotten. Then, around 2020, SOCOM identified the need for a lightweight medium machine gun in 338 Norma Mag and has been ramping up for a full weapon competition ever since. This included an ammunition contract for the 338 Norma Mag Multi-Purpose round that was awarded to UDC USA, Inc. There have been a couple of evaluation contracts for weapons, including one that was won by SIG Sauer for its MG 338 machine guns in 338 NM. The main competition will close in early 2024 and maybe we’ll have a winner in late 2024.

SO WHY THE 338 NM NOW? 

The 338 Lapua Mag has been the king of the international sniper community for decades. This caliber and weight bullet range (250 to 300 grains, typical) is the right combination for this application. However, the latest modern propellants are fine-tuned for maximum performance and can get the .338 caliber bullet to the ideal velocities in the smaller chassis of the 338 Norma Magnum, which could not be accomplished 30 years ago in the 338 Lapua. In addition, the shorter length of the Norma cartridge opens up the number of rifle actions that can fire the round. 

The number of actions that can fit the 338 Lapua Mag length cartridge is limited. The 338 Lapua Mag is designed to be fired in a belt-fed machine gun. However, since the 1980’s there haven’t been any serious weapon development efforts to fire the 338 Lapua Mag in a machine gun. The 338 NM has been fired in machine guns since General Dynamics created the prototype Lightweight Medium Machine Gun in 2012. This powerhouse system was never adopted by any domestic or international military group, though.

NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE

Why doesn’t the sniper community use “king of two miles” calibers like 375 Cheytac or 375 Enabler? The KO2M distance is 3219 meters. According to the competition’s rules, weapons cannot exceed 40 pounds. Compare this to the Barrett MRAD (MK22) at an extremely light 15.2 pounds. The length of a typical KO2M rifle is 1500mm to 1600mm and is not collapsible. Again, compare this to the MRAD at 1255mm, fully extended, and much shorter when collapsed for transport. The KO2M weapons and calibers are not designed for combat, they are designed for maximum accuracy at maximum distance. Therefore, a larger and heavier cartridge is not an issue, as no one is carrying these rifle systems for days.

WHO DESIGNED THE 338 NM CALIBER?  

Jimmie Sloan is the inventor of the 338 NM caliber. It began as a wildcat caliber in 2008 and entered production with Norma in 2009. It was certified by CIP in 2010. So, clearly, this wildcat was on the fast track to success from the very beginning.

ADOPTION HEADWINDS  

The only competitor to the 338 NM is its brother the 300 NM. At worst, they could end up being co-kings. The 300 NM would dominate in precision long-range and the 338 NM would dominate in combat and anti-material requirements. I believe the 300 NM has an advantage in the number of great bullets available to deploy. I think the 338 NM will see more bullets developed for it in the near future. One popular commercial website has 286 products for .30 caliber bullets and only 72 in .338 caliber bullets. The numbers will never be equal, though, since there are so many .30 caliber cartridge offerings and so few in 338. The additional payload capabilities of the 338 NM allow it to carry more tungsten in a penetrator or other increased energetic materials for downrange impact.

THE FUTURE OF 338 NORMA MAGNUM

Expect to see the following in the coming years for the 338 NM:

• More companies will offer sniper and hunting rifles chambered in this caliber. First, because it’s a good caliber, and second to follow suit with what the U.S. government is using.  
• More weapon systems will be offered in 338 NM. In the past, the systems were created by the end user and there was no standardization. The 408 Cheytac was one of the first to be offered as a complete system based on a cartridge and now Barrett follows suit with its MK 22 MRAD (if you have a spare $22k). These packages included: a weapon, barrels, optics (day and night), a ballistic computer system, and more.
• A suite of military tactical ammunition will be developed, similar to the way the .50 caliber spawned a suite of purpose-built cartridges. This will include sniper rounds and machine gun rounds. Right now, the U.S. military only has two rounds for this caliber, the Army’s M1162 300-grain AP round and SOCOM’s 272-grain Multi-Purpose round. The .50 caliber currently has around a dozen fielded options, dozens of commercial variations, and a couple dozen inactive configurations. Obvious potential versions would include a tracer, M962 Saboted Light Armor Piercing (SLAP), and Mk211 (High Explosive Armor Piercing), or as near to these versions as requested by the government.

SIGNIFICANT GROWING PAINS

This is the first time in history a sniper caliber will become a machine gun caliber. This is nothing to be taken lightly, this may well be a major undertaking. There will be challenges now in the development of future rifles. There will be challenges down the road with sniper ammo not running in machine guns and machine gun ammo not being able to hit the broadside of a barn.

There are significant differences between ammunition optimized for long-range precision use and use in a machine gun. For instance, the brass thicknesses between sniper-grade and machine gun-grade cartridges are different. There are also major differences in the hardness, seating depth, and performance of primers that must be optimized for the two, very different, applications. Ammunition issues across sniper and machine gun platforms using the same caliber may come with a dearth of problems such as accuracy, reliability and other performance issues related to operating temperatures, barrel erosion, and even wear and breakage of weapon system components that may be novel to each system.

It’s clear that long-range precision ammo and machine gun ammo are not interchangeable. The two will have to be developed separately, end-users must learn to differentiate them through education, and they must be carefully segregated in the field in order to maintain safety and performance. Let’s not forget that the .50 caliber cartridge had significant growing pains when it went from a machine gun caliber to a sniper caliber. So, history tells us these issues can be overcome.

On the whole, however, this is an exciting transition in the ammunition and weapon worlds. We should all be looking forward to the enhanced capabilities afforded by the continuing adoption of 338 Norma Magnum. More to follow… 100% guaranteed.

Better is the enemy of good enough. While this statement remains valid for most everything that costs money, it is not so when it comes to weapons and warfighting. Continual upgrades to existing weapons along with next generation weapon development is necessary to win future conflicts. The development and fielding of hypersonic weapons is a prime example.

The media tells us that China and Russia, even Iran and North Korea, are ahead of the U.S. in the development and fielding of hypersonic weapon technology. We’re told hypersonic technology is also being developed by India, Japan, France, and Australia. We are led to believe that the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers are vulnerable to hypersonic weapons as is Guam, Hawaii, and coastal regions of the continental United States itself. All the media’s hypersonic hype leads many of us to reason, if hypersonic missiles and, perhaps, hypersonic aircraft, both manned and unmanned, are an unbridled threat to us, then development of antiaircraft guns firing hypersonic munitions, or super hyper-fast interceptor missiles must be a necessity. The media conveniently neglects discussion about the physical and material limitations involved in hypersonic weapons; leaving the reader fearing our certain demise should, say, a conflict over Taiwan or free passage of the South China Sea arise. China will fire thousands of hypersonic weapons at our forces and outlying territories like Guam and we’ll be at their mercy – or so the media would have us believe. As you will read below, our competitors are not ahead of us. In fact, their hypersonic technology pales in comparison.

UNDERSTANDING A MACH NUMBER

Named after the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, a Mach number is a dimensionless quantity in fluid dynamics representing the ratio of flow velocity past a boundary to the local speed of sound. The speed of sound (Mach 1) is approximately 1,125 feet per second (FPS) which translates to 767 miles per hour (MPH) or, one mile in 4.69 seconds. These velocities assume a constant temperature of 69F at sea level. As temperature and elevation vary, so does the speed of sound.

HYPERSONIC WEAPONS TRAVEL FIVE OR MORE TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND

At five times the speed of sound (Mach 5), a vehicle travels at approximately 3,835 MPH which is a little faster than a mile a second. In comparison, the fastest performing small arms bullet can achieve bullet velocities approaching the 4,000 FPS range. At velocities beyond 4,000 FPS, average off-the-shelf bullets literally disintegrate from heat generated by air friction.

It is one thing to have a hypersonic weapon that can only fly in a straight line to a preprogramed static target. It is quite another to have steerable hypersonic weapons that can maneuver inflight to engage a moving target hundreds of miles, even thousands of miles away. Reportedly, the U.S. has steerable hypersonic vehicles that are capable of Mach 22 (or faster). We’re talking a speed of 16,874 MPH. That speed translates to faster than 1 mile every 1/18th of a second, or a speed over ground of 18-plus miles a second. So how do hypersonic weapons survive hypersonic velocities without vaporizing, and how are they steered?

HYPERSONIC CRUISE MISSILES AND HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLES

There are two principal types of hypersonic vehicles: hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles.

Hypersonic cruise missiles are powered by airbreathing scramjets, and are limited, because of air density necessary for fuel combustion, to flight below 100,000 feet. While airbreathing like a slower flying conventional fanjet engine, a scramjet significantly differs. Like a turbocharger on a car engine, a conventional fan jet engine uses a series of turbine fans to compress the air that feeds into its combustion chamber. This is necessary to richen the oxygen ratio for the air-fuel mixture entering the combustion chamber where it is ignited. The rapidly expanding gases resulting from combustion provide thrust from the rear of the engine. Conventional jet engines cannot be used at hypersonic speeds because they “choke” on the air that gets backed up in front of the engine’s compressor blades and air intake.

Scramjets don’t use compressor turbines because the speed of the vehicle is sufficient to compress the air entering the combustion chamber. Think of a scramjet as more of a pipe with a venturi combustion chamber inside. Scramjets can propel a vehicle well into the Mach speed range but still require air (oxygen) for fuel combustion; thus, capping their usable altitude at around 100,000 feet where there is still enough air for compression and combustion.

A hypersonic glide vehicle travels at much higher altitudes (outer atmosphere) and at greater speeds than their hypersonic cruise missile cousins. A hypersonic glide vehicle is usually launched atop a ballistic missile first stage called the boost stage. Upon reaching Earth’s outer atmosphere, the glide vehicle separates and transitions to hypersonic flight as it re-enters the lower atmosphere. This is called the glide stage and it is this super-fast maneuverable hypersonic glide stage that allows it to evade most existing nuclear missile defense systems, which were designed to counter ballistic missiles during a warhead’s ballistic re-entry stage. Even so, hypersonic vehicles are generally slower than ballistic missiles (i.e., sub-orbital or fractional orbital), because hypersonic vehicles travel in the atmosphere, and ballistic missiles travel in the vacuum of space outside Earth’s atmosphere.

Reaching hypersonic speed is not a significant engineering challenge. We have been achieving hypersonic speeds since the V-2 rocket was fielded by Germany during WWII. The piloted X-15 experimental rocket plane, flown in the late 1950s into the early 1960s, was hypersonic. The engineering challenges in hypersonic flight involves building vehicle bodies from exotic composite materials that can survive sustained frictional temperatures exceeding 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit. These same materials must also withstand the extreme air pressures of hypersonic flight without compromising vehicle strength and payload.

While hypersonic vehicle material construction is both demanding and expensive when compared to conventional cruise missiles or aircraft, the greatest challenge is directional control of the vehicle at hypersonic velocity, e.g., being able to correct the vehicle’s flight path to hit a target during, say, a 1,500-mile flight. Conventional winged or finned aerodynamic control surfaces like airplanes and cruise missiles have, don’t effectively work at hypersonic velocities. The physics speak for themselves; the faster a hypersonic vehicle goes, the less conventional aerodynamic control surfaces work. In fact, conventional airframe designs create unwanted turbulence and drag and serve to destabilize a hypersonic vehicle rather than facilitate its flight.

STEERING A HYPERSONIC VEHICLE

The U.S. has developed several unique means of steering a hypersonic vehicle that may already be incorporated into operational hypersonic vehicles. Operational status of this technology remains classified. Being able to make course changes in-flight at hypersonic speed is essential, especially if the target is moving, e.g., an aircraft carrier battle group. It is also essential to vary the hypersonic vehicle’s attack profile (altitude and track) making it less vulnerable to countermeasures.

One of these steering methods uses high-pressure air jets (thrusters) mounted along the vehicle’s body and flight surfaces which act as steering thrusters. These thrusters nudge the vehicle left, right, up, and down. Another steering method for ultra-high Mach speeds uses multiple pulsed lasers mounted along the vehicle’s leading aerodynamic edges and body. The lasers are aimed a short distance ahead and to the side of the vehicle. When the lasers are selectively pulsed, they create a low-pressure air plasma that reduces the drag over the lasered area. The unlasered counter pressure effectively nudges the craft in the direction of the lasered low drag area; thus, maneuvering at ultra-high Mach speeds is achieved. These same lasers, when pulsed ahead of the vehicle, create a low-pressure area reducing drag (less frictional heat) and further provide a radar-defeating stealth plasma envelope around the vehicle.

COMMUNICATING COURSE CORRECTION COMMANDS TO HYPERSONIC VEHICLES

Hypersonic vehicles must be maneuverable (steerable), either by means of an on-board GPS-based steering command system (likely AI-based), or a satellite link, or both. At hypersonic speeds antennas don’t function, or if they do, they marginally function. This means receiving GPS satellite navigation data can be sketchy, especially if flying inside a plasma envelope (described previously). Hypersonic vehicles employ internal guidance systems that are continually updated via satellite downlink. But steering a hypersonic vehicle has another set of issues that result from its speed. Course corrections and altitude changes require adequate standoff (distance-to-target) to be realized.

A marriage of satellite-based target detection, hypersonic vehicle tracking, and steering commands is necessary. This requires robust satellite capabilities that can understand and predict motion, and can perform data association, relative position determination, and maneuver detection. This must all be achieved real-time and then communicated to the hypersonic vehicle while it’s in-flight so the appropriate course changes can be achieved.

Let’s say, for example, a hypersonic glide vehicle has separated from its booster and is now traveling in-bound at Mach 20. Its target is an aircraft carrier 900 miles away traveling at 20 knots on a perpendicular heading to the glide vehicle’s course. The carrier is being tracked by satellite and the satellite is providing constant position updates to the hypersonic glide vehicle. Computation of the intended rendezvous attack point is constantly updated, and small course corrections are made to the glide vehicle’s flight path. The glide vehicle is less than 25 seconds out when the carrier battle group detects it and makes a radical course and speed change to evade the incoming hypersonic glide vehicle. The glide vehicle, because of the relative speeds involved, has virtually no time window to correct its course and still hit the carrier. The attack fails.

The lessons in the preceding scenario are this. Faster is not always better, and an agile target will usually always result in a miss. To up the odds of a hit in the carrier scenario, numerous hypersonic missiles would need to be fired in swarms (close sequence) – and that’s exactly the strategy our potential enemies intend to use. But this strategy can also fail if the carrier battle group has the appropriate countermeasures (decoys, counter missile batteries, and guns), and in that case, it leaves the attacker vulnerable with a depleted magazine of hypersonic weapons as expenditures outpace resupply.

COUNTERMEASURES

Are there effective countermeasures against hypersonic weapons?

The short answer is “yes,” but current detection and fire control systems are mostly inadequate no matter who’s flag you’re flying. The longer answer is countermeasure success depends on detection range, incoming speed, and flight profile at which the hypersonic weapon is traveling. Countering hypersonic weapons during the glide phase (at maximum speed) requires powerful sensor data fusion consisting of long-range radar(s), as well as dedicated space-based infrared sensor tracking capabilities to capture hypersonic signatures in the atmosphere, and fire control systems for tracking and aiming directed energy weapons and interceptor missiles. Much in the same way that anti-ballistic missiles were developed as countermeasures to ballistic missiles, directed energy weapons and ultra-fast hypersonic interceptor missiles are under development as countermeasures to hypersonic weapons.

SPACE-BASED FOO FIGHTER TRACKING SATELLITES ARE NECESSARY

A cohesive “FOO Fighter” satellite constellation capable of detecting hypersonic missiles and then directing interceptor countermeasures to destroy them is under development by the U.S. This highly classified program’s name is borrowed from the mysterious balls of light that plagued Allied aviators during WWII. Many pilots reported that luminous orbs appeared to be able to out-maneuver their aircraft and couldn’t be detected by radar. The pilots nicknamed these mysterious balls of light “Foo Fighters.” Hypersonic vehicles can out-fly modern military fighter aircraft and evade conventional missile tracking systems and that is what’s prompting the development of the FOO Fighter satellite constellation and other related hypersonic countermeasure programs.

CONVENTIONAL GUN AND HYPERSONIC BULLETS

As mentioned previously, off-the-shelf bullets disintegrate around velocities exceeding 4,000 FPS largely because of air friction-generated heat and conventional bullet material construction. Bullets could certainly be made from exotic metals, or ceramics, and specifically designed to survive hypersonic velocities, but exotic material construction is expensive and would solve only part of the problem. Bullet aerodynamic design would also have to radically change from the shapes we currently see; like spitzers or hollow-point boat-tails. A hypersonic round would more likely resemble a dart-like anti-armor sabot light armor penetrator (SLAP) round. Use of a sabot to carry the projectile down the bore would likely be necessary to gain hypersonic velocity. A SLAP-like projectile would be necessary to reduce drag and eliminate excessive mass. And last, the gun’s bore would likely have to be smooth since a rifled bore would burn out from hypersonic velocities and bullet spin would necessarily not improve projectile accuracy at hypersonic speed. This would all come with an excessive price tag and no guarantee of increased range or accuracy.

Directed energy weapons seem to offer the most effective counter to hypersonic vehicles. The U.S. military has already developed land-based, seaborne, and airborne versions capable of neutralizing hypersonic missiles. Even so, some missiles may get through if fired in a swarm.

Currently, the last line of defense against hypersonic weapons is the Navy’s 20 millimeter close-in anti-missile weapons system Phalanx C-WIZ and Army’s C-RAM land-based mobile version that fire at a blazing rate of 4,500 rounds per minute. The gun is automatically aimed using an automated radar and infrared optical fire control system. The gun’s high rate of fire literally puts a dense wall of 20mm bullets in the direct path of the incoming target that shreds it. While 20mm bullets are far from hypersonic, projectile quantity, from the gun’s high rate of fire, makes the destructive difference. That said, the gun has a limited effective range of about two miles and can only be used as a last line of defense. If it misses, there is no second chance.

Another shipboard countermeasure weapon being experimented with is a linear explosive resembling a hose that is projected by rocket a few hundred feet from a ship onto the sea surface perpendicular to the incoming path of a hypersonic missile. When the missile is on its final approach with limited maneuverability and closing on the target ship; the seaborne explosive charge is detonated, raising a curtain of water in the path of the oncoming missile. When the missile hits the water at hypersonic velocity it either disintegrates or veers off course.

A DEVELOPMENTAL PRIORITY IS NECESSARY

Which should be fully developed first: hypersonic weapons or hypersonic countermeasures? The price tag to develop both offense and defensive hypersonic weapons simultaneously is too costly. Both offensive and defensive weapon technologies require a dedicated satellite constellation for sophisticated detection, tracking and (fire control) targeting. Many believe that defense is principal, considering our competitors claimed technical maturity of their offensive hypersonic weapons. However, capabilities-based thinking has two consequences. First, it assumes that no weapon is ever “good enough” so capabilities must be continually improved, requiring more research, development, and lots of money. Second, because in the future anything is possible, weapon concepts advance using borderline-theoretical technologies. This approach bets that the technologies used will have ample time to mature and that time is on our side. This thinking seconds the possibility that our adversaries will likewise be striving to acquire the same capabilities and may succeed before we do. It further assumes our potential enemies are far advanced compared to us. This has recently been touted by the media and in adversaries’ claims about military application of autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and machine learning into unstoppable hypersonic weapons. Such claims are largely deceptive, but we are meant to be afraid.

Fortunately, our competitors’ share the same issues we have. Without a strong defense against hypersonic weapons, and the industrial base to readily restock expended swarms, one must be very selective of the fight one picks.