MG 338 vs M240: Is This SIG’s Best Belt-Fed Yet?

If you’ve spent any time behind a belt-fed machine gun, the MG 338 will feel like a breath of fresh air. I’ve been around long enough to respect the reliability of the M240 it’s the old warhorse of the squad support world. But the MG 338? It’s like SIG Sauer went into the future, grabbed a machine gun, and dropped it into our timeline. This is my firsthand experience comparing the MG 338 vs M240 and why I think SIG might’ve just outdone itself.

Why the M240 Is Still a Trusted Workhorse

Let’s not pretend the M240 is going anywhere just yet. Chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO and weighing just over 27 pounds in its standard configuration, it’s been a go-to general-purpose machine gun for U.S. forces for decades.

I’ve lugged this thing across ranges, vehicles, and rugged terrain. It’s tough. It fires reliably. It’s also heavy, clunky, and not exactly gentle on the shoulder. Changing hot barrels mid-engagement isn’t fun, and neither is trying to stay mobile with all that weight.

But when you need consistent suppression and you’ve got a couple of strong backs nearby it gets the job done.

Enter the MG 338: Lighter, Meaner, and Smarter

I first laid hands on the SIG MG 338 during a range demo. Honestly? I was skeptical. A belt-fed chambered in .338 Norma Magnum sounded like overkill, and at just under 20 pounds, I doubted it would be controllable. But within the first burst, I knew this wasn’t just hype.

Advantages Over the M240:

• Superior range: Easily reaches 1,500–1,700 meters with better terminal ballistics than 7.62 NATO.

• Reduced recoil: Feels less punishing than the M240 thanks to SIG’s recoil mitigation tech.

• Built-in suppressor compatibility: It’s not just an afterthought it’s integral to the design.

• Weight savings: Seven pounds lighter than the M240B, and that matters when you’re on the move.

The MG 338 offers the punch of a heavy machine gun in a portable, squad-deployable package. That kind of hybrid capability is a game-changer.

MG 338 vs M240: Side-by-Side Breakdown

Logistics and Reality: What’s Holding the MG 338 Back?

Here’s the thing adoption takes more than performance. The M240 is in use globally. Ammo is cheap and everywhere. Armorers know it inside and out. In contrast, the MG 338 uses specialized .338 Norma Magnum rounds, which aren’t in every armory (yet), and the platform is still in limited deployment.

From a cost and logistics standpoint, the MG 338 has an uphill climb. But from an operator's perspective? It’s hard to argue against the advantages.

Is the MG 338 SIG’s Best Belt-Fed Yet?

Yes without a doubt.

The MG 338 isn’t just a new machine gun. It’s a reimagining of what a medium machine gun can be. If the goal is long-range suppression, lighter carry weight, and integrated suppressor use, SIG hit the bullseye.

While the M240 will continue to serve as a reliable backbone in military arsenals, the MG 338 is clearly designed with the future of warfare in mind a future that demands range, mobility, and precision.

Final Thoughts: Would I Carry It?

Absolutely. If given the choice between the MG 338 and M240 on a mission requiring mobility, suppression, and long-range engagement? I’m picking the MG 338 every time. And that’s coming from someone who’s been on the M240’s side for years.

What Do You Think?

Have you fired either of these belt-feds? Share your experience with the MG 338 vs M240 in the comments below or let me know which one you’d want in your loadout.