FN Herstal

SIG Range Day 19 – SL MAG, SIG’s New 338 Machine Gun

The coolest thing at SIG’s Range Day was the unveiling of the SIG Light Machine Gun (SL MAG) in 338 Norma Mag. You may recall the SIG Next Gen Squad Automatic Weapon candidate which was shown at AUSA back in October. Although revealed first, that machine gun is actually an offshoot if this one which was developed awhile but put on the back burner while SIG worked on their USSOCOM contract winning Suppressed Upper Receiver Group.

Designed to satisfy a desire for a 338 NM Machine Gun, the SL MAG boasts ranges that rival the .50 M2 MG from a weapon lighter than the M240.

Designer David Steimke went over some of the details of the SL MAG.

It is a multi caliber design and can quickly be switched to 7.62 NATO for use on training ranges with the swap of just four components (barrel, bolt, feed tray and cover). Additionally, the feed tray cover can be swapped for a side folding model. Below, you can see the receiver reinforcement insert common to SIG weapons.

The feed tray design allows a new belt to be fed into the weapon without opening the cover and ammunition feed can be swapped from left to right.

The collapsible stock is side folding.

On this SL MAG, you can see the ROMEO8T Red Dot Sight with Magnifier.

We were treated to a short demo of the weapon firing.

For the demo, they fired SIG Ammo.

Although the demo did not feature a Suppressor, the weapon was optimized for use with one. There are three gas setting including a Suppressor setting.

We’ll update you as we learn more about the SIG family of machine guns.

www.sigsauer.com

7 Responses to “SIG Range Day 19 – SL MAG, SIG’s New 338 Machine Gun”

  1. Kirk says:

    OK. I’m gonna do it. I know you’re all expecting it…

    Where is the rest of the system? You have an MG with a range that’s now equivalent to an M2 (supposedly), and you’re still firing it off the bipod…?

    Have they bred new gunners, or something? How the hell are you going to do any better addressing fires from PKs at 1200m, when the basic problem is that PFC Joe Average (who is more likely to be “the guy”) can’t hit effectively past about 800m off a bipod?

    I mean, if we cloned Carlos Hathcock, maaaaaaybe…

    That range problem we have is not an artifact of the round or the MG firing it, the actual problem is that the average gunner firing off a bipod can’t effectively deliver accurate suppressive fire much past 800m. So, you give that guy a neato-keeno .338, what the hell have you really fixed? This isn’t addressing the dismount MG range problem, at all.

    You have the same issue with most of the flex mounts out there. You need something like the old MK-19 mounts we had, whatever those were called, that included a T&E system–And, we aren’t even building the vehicles to take those anymore.

    Dealing with the issue of distant ambushes by PKM equipped Taliban is more a problem of the platform we’re supporting the guns with. An 18 year-old private firing off a bipod is not capable of doing what needs to be done–We need something that is stable enough, and predictable enough that you can actually issue fire control corrections to them, and have it work out in a timely enough manner to be effective.

    A .338 isn’t going to be any more accurate off a shoulder and a bipod than a 7.62 MG. Not having any experience with the system, I’d even be willing to make a long-shot bet and say that your effective range may even be less than the 7.62mm systems.

    • Seamus says:

      Dude, please for the sake of your blood pressure, chill.

      Look at those pictures, it CLEARLY mates with some sort of 2 pin bracket that looks VERY similar to the M240B mount and may very well be reverse compatible with the mount and tripod since it is also reverse compatible with 7.62mm NATO.

      Also this is a sample gun, not a finished product line or even an official weapons project for record. A full weapons adoption program will obviously include things like weapons mounts and tripods for dismounted use.

      So roll up you “Jump to Conclusions” mat, take your blood pressure meds and relax. It will all buff out in the end.

      • Kirk says:

        Which is how we got the M192, some ten years after the M240 got fielded. Which I’ll point out to you, has not exactly been a major aid to returning long-range fires while maneuvering in the mountains of Afghanistan…

        These things are systems, and the system consists of more than just the gun and ammo combination. You want to solve the actual problem, the entire issue needs to be addressed, and that’s precisely what they’re not doing.

        Show me a more adaptable tripod being developed alongside this gun, or maybe even a PackBot-mounted remote mount like a CROWS for dismounts, and I’ll happily shut up.

        On the other hand–When I see them advertise these guns in isolation as a solution to the long-range PKM-based fire problem in the mountains, and they’re not addressing the actual problem? I’m gonna call the industry and the Army procurement types out on it.

        A PK and an M240 have ballistic capabilities that are so close that it’s not even funny; the reason we’re being outranged by the other side is more due to the firing platform we’re using than anything else. No stability, no repeatable firing solutions, and no ability to make gunnery adjustments from gun team leader observations: That’s the problem–Not the guns. Or, the ammo.

        Good Christ, it’s like people have never run a damn gun crew, or something around here. How the hell do you expect to deliver effective fire out to 1800m, without a friggin’ tripod? And, how do you push the M122/192 into a mode where you can deliver that fire using them while maneuvering in the mountains?

        Hell, if anyone was really serious about increasing the effectiveness of our MG fires, they’d be concentrating on getting more out of our existing system than buying a whole new gun/caliber combination. The FN tripod the Canadians issue would be better for using on the move, as would be the version the UK issues. Anything but that idiotic antiquated crap design we’re issuing–That primitive POS really should have been dumped about the time we adopted the M60, as being entirely inappropriate for a GPMG. Am I the only person who finds it ridiculous that we’re still issuing the same basic tripod for our MG that we put under the M1919 back in WWII? Hasn’t the state of the art advanced, somewhat?

        • Sitzpinkler says:

          Kirk,

          Exactly and then some. There is some value to what we’ll get from this some of which we won’t realize until after it’s been fielded for awhile. Dudes need to re-learn the machine gun TTP’s of our grandfathers and greatgrandfathers. Continuing to use our dismounted beltfeds like automatic rifles is pure institutional malaise. Good luck getting the Yop generation to carry the ammo this thing needs, guys pitching the theory that it will be more effective and won’t need as much ammo to service a target miss the whole concept of machine gun suppression. Yes nothing suppresses like a 4B1T center of mass but rounds gotta be going down range at a RoF that fixes the en while we maneuver to close with and destroy them or Call For Fire does its thing. Point being you are going to still need the same amount of ammo quantities as 7.62 (which is never enough)but now in .338N. No way dismounted troops are going to carry this as it’s being proposed by guys who will never, ever have to do it BTW. It will be good on RW and Lights like the DAGOR.

        • Totto says:

          I reckon it’s an ideal replacement for the tank co-ax mg.

  2. PTM says:

    Is the cool vehicle included with the MG? Or is it an accessory?

  3. Hodge175 says:

    I am still stuck at why we are running that shitty M145 MGO on our M240L with 3.5 power and our Squad Leaders/Team Leaders have a 4x ACOG. You cannot hit what you cannot see.

    And the next time a CSM comes on a machine gun range and asks why my gunners are not shooting plastic targets at night with our Thermals. They just don’t understand machine gun theory.