[HisSoldier]

I've talked with a few people who carried the M-60 in combat, and never have any of them said anything bad about the gun. Have I just met a few biased soldiers?
I'm reading a book on military rams written and published in the UK and practically every American weapon is pretty worthless, but the authors twice say bad things about the M-60.

A question to Gulf war vets. Given the choice between the M-60 and the Minimi which would you rather have, in a fixed position (No one would rather pack an M-60 than a Minimi I suppose). I realize that the difference is the cartridge, but if the M-60 is as prone to jamming as the author says it is that would balance that out. He also said it was called "the pig" by US soldiers, inferring that to be a reference to it's unreliability, but if it were called that I would guess it referred to weight, and many "light" machine guns were heavier so I suppose they would have said that about, say, a Bren gun.

So, the M-60, a flawed weapon?
Thanks,

[Trebor]

If you've never heard about soldiers complaining about the M-60 or never read references to it being a "flawed" design than you haven't read much abou the M-60.

The consensus is there were several design defects in the weapon. One is the gas piston could be installed backwards which turns it into a single-shot weapon. Another is that pieces of the gas system had to be safety wired in place to keep them from working loss and falling off when the weapon was fired. I've also read that the pistol grips often had to be safety wired to keep from falling off, although it wasn't as large a problem as the gas system issues.

The gun also must be loaded correctly with the bolt in the correct position or the feed pawl will be damaged. (I can't recall the specific, but it's something about whether the bolt is too the rear or forward when the top cover is closed)

The gun is also known for it's ability to "run away" due to worn sears.

Oh, and don't forget, the bipod was attached to the barrel, which means when you carry a spare barrel, you also have to lug the extra weight of a second bipod.

I will say I have no practical working knowledge of using the M-60. I never served and I've only put a few rounds through one a couple of times. But, the faults are pretty well know. Later versions of the gun incorporated design improvements that reduced or eliminated many of the issues.

[Jorg]

Don't forget the asbestos glove.

[Quiet]

IMO...
The US Military should have adopted the FN MAG back in the late-1950s, instead of the M-60.
Took the US Military about 40 years to correct that mistake, when they adopted the M-240 series (FN MAG).

[Snowdog]

Perchance the author was too enthralled with his critique of US ordnance to reminisce the delightful SA80.

[longknife12]

I've fired mega rounds in a M60 and never had a issue.JMO
Dan

[Sam1911]

We have several Staff members who have extensive time behind (and/or who own) the M-60. I'm sure they'll have some comments.

Having said that, Trebor's comments are exactly those I would have brought up. Was it a flawed design? Well, it had issues that could (one would believe EASILY) been better. But it did work fairly well and was a couple of lbs. lighter than most versions of the MAG.

I have it on good authority that the most convenient feature was the quick (self-) detach trigger group.

If you're comparing it to a M-249 (which as you pointed out, may not be quite appropriate) you will certainly note that there was once a Minimi user who had a jam, too. (I think just once, though...;) )

[amd6547]

Frankly, we might have done better if we had simply adopted the MG3 version of the MG42.

[Charlie DeArmond]

Poor design. Made to work most of the time by dedicated and resourceful troops in VN. Worked a heck of a lot better than the early M-16. Knew an ex LRRP who lugged one around and used it more like a rifle than an LMG. Said he knew it would work, so it was worth the effort. Same guy kept an assembled cleaning rod in his pack for knocking stuck cases out of his buddies' M-16s. He was a rifle shooter since childhood. Didn't talk about the war much.

Those VN era guns changed a lot under design revision, so they really have to be considered it terms of different variants under different conditions.

They would have called a weapon like that a "pig" because of all the ammo it ate. Loading the weapons on helicopter gunships was referred to by some as "feeding the pig." Infantrymen were unlikely to breath an unkind word about their M-60 no matter how much of a pain it was to carry ammo for it, as it was a real life saver.

[7thCavScout]

Infantrymen were unlikely to breath an unkind word about their M-60 no matter how much of a pain it was to carry ammo for it, as it was a real life saver.

I would happen to be one of those Infantrymen who has nothing but praise for the M60. I humped a "Pig" during Operation Desert Storm and owe my life to it. The only drawback was once you make that Pig squeal you tend to draw the majority of the incoming fire. But hell I guess any MG does that. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the 60.

[BullfrogKen]

I was an 0331 in the Corps in the early 90's, a heavy machinegunner MOS.

The 60 isn't a heavy machinegun, but they were organic to the HMG platoon in the batallion so we learned them in school, and used them often. I was in during the period of the updated E3 version.

I hated them.


A leaf spring provided tension to two pins that held the trigger housing group to the receiver. It was very easily dislodged, and lost when it sprung off into the brush. We'd usually wire it down, but of course it made taking the gun apart impossible without wirecutters.

It jammed often. Sometimes we'd be down to one working gun in the whole platoon.

The receiver is very thin. So when a disintegrating link or piece of spent brass fell into the gun, you couldn't use your finger to get it out. And the bottom of the receiver is closed, so it won't fall out. With the M2 BMG the receiver is open, so debris or spent brass/links falls free of the gun. Taking a hot gun apart to get out a piece of hot brass isn't a fun exercise.


Glad we abandoned that design. Should have happened long ago.

[AlexanderA]

I own one as a civilian. It is not one of my favorite guns.

[HisSoldier]

Wow, thanks for all the responses. I'm sure there is a lot of British antagonism against American weapons in the author(s) of the book, but they did say a few very kind words about JMB and the M2 .50 BMG.

Must have hurt to write down on paper.

[jerryd]

We had 5 m-60 on our base in rvn never had a problem with them, keep clean, know how to put back together, and lubed, and dont forget the glove when replacing barrels, or you will have a webbed hand. Just like any piece of machinery,it will have its quirks.

[EmGeeGeorge]

double post

[EmGeeGeorge]

I liked the -60 when I used one in the Navy on AD.
It was reliable, accurate, and easy to maintain...
As far as quick barrel changes, you can always wait til you have a round or two left then unlock the barrel, pull that trigger, then watch the barrel fly foward about three feet. No glove needed! I wouldn't recommend doing this while on a boat though, for obvious reasons.
If a sear wears out in combat, twist the belt to break it... then you can break the belt into 7 to 15 round segments, hold the bolt open, load, close cover, let go of the bolt while aiming on target.... and repeat. (to train on this you can wire your trigger back)
They now(at least back in 2004) have feedtray covers that allow you to close them on a closed bolt, belt in, and still rack it without being a gorilla in the arms department. That, with a 16" barrel and a forward pistol grip makes them a saw on steroids, that goes thru mud walls, steel, and izuzus without any doubts...

[MtnCreek]

As far as quick barrel changes, you can always wait til you have a round or two left then unlock the barrel, pull that trigger, then watch the barrel fly foward about three feet. No glove needed! I wouldn't recommend doing this while on a boat though, for obvious reasons.

I would like to see that.. from a safe distance... :eek:

[EmGeeGeorge]

In training I saw it happen a few times. You go to change your barrel, are getting screamed at or you hear the other guns "talking back" that they are gonna go dry, and forget to toggle it back down on the switch... never happened to me personally but wasnt a huge deal... usually got more laughs from trainers that anything else...

[rcmodel]

I loved them.

Except for the carrying them till your shoulder hurt part.

But it was still better then carrying a .30 Browning MG till your shoulder hurt clear down to your socks part.

rc

[jmorris]

I'm with Jerry, there is nothing that exists without flaws.

[clem]

It's a great weapon and it has killed thousands of America's enemies.

[Billy Shears]

I have limited experience with the M60 -- I was in the infantry, and I fired them often enough, but I was never a 60 gunner. I was in right when the 25th IN was was changing over from the 60 to the 240, and all the gunners I knew complained of the increase in weight. They liked the reliability, but didn't care for the extra weight at all. Five extra pounds might not sound like a lot to most people, but it really is no fun to carry on a 25 mile foot march.

I can understand how the M60 could have been designed with the flaws it had, what I can't fathom is why they were never corrected. None of them are major, fundamental flaws. The gas system could have been improved so that you couldn't put the piston in backward, and so that it wouldn't disassemble itself under the vibration of firing the weapon and need to be safety wired in place. The bipod could have been moved off the barrel. The front sight could, with trivial ease, been made adjustable, so that there was no need to rezero the gun after changing out barrels. The barrel and handguard could, again with trivial ease, been reconfigured to provide a handle for quick barrel changes. The method of attaching the pistol grip could have been altered to eliminate the tendency for the spring that held the pins on place to fall off. The problem with the sear that cause runaway guns could have been solved, and eventually was, with the M60E3, but it shouldn't have taken so long.

These weren't major, inherent design flaws; they were just bugs that should have been worked out long, long ago. I can't understand why they never were... until the army committed to change over to the M240.

[Sam1911]

Many of those changes WERE incorporated under the M60E4/MK43 program. However, when the new updated weapon was tested against the MAG/240 it still lost.

The weight difference between the two, while I'm sure noticable to the guys carrying it, was less than 5 lbs. And when the M60 was slimmed down to make it more portable, reliability went south even faster.

[Nicky Santoro]

OP,
I carried one on a number of occasions in '69-'70 and never had any malfunctions. I was intense about maintenance and perhaps that was a contributing factor. I was equally intense about maintenance of my M16 and never had any malfunctions. Was I just lucky? Was maintenance a factor? I don't know. What was, was.

[kBob]

We called in my company the M-60 the Pig as in it was heavy and the M67RR the Hog because it was heavier.

Most problems as to operation were operator error and leadership problems. The design could have been improved, but so can anything.

I fired the MG-1 (actually a converted MG-42 with waffen ampt marks) or the MG3 in Bundeswehr serice during Project Partnership several times and twice at the International Danau Waffen Lauf for competition. Ihad thought as a high schooler the MG 42 was too kewl. After using one I prefered the M-60. I fired the FN MAG long before the US adopted a version of it, and found it not as comfortable to carry and use from other than the bipod or tripod. I preferred the M-60. I tried the AA52 (French enterpitation of the MG42)once and laughed and really preferred the M-60.

The M-60 had them beat as far as ergonomics went, in my mind and in myhands.

There were "problems" The reason the gas system was wired shut was to prevent troops from muckng about with the gas piston after the armorer placed it in correctly. It had nothing to do with it shooting loose. If a GI can mess with something they will, thus the wire and yes a special set of plyiers in the arms room to twist it as it was installed.

Yes the firing pin could be installed backwards......and some of us cried constantly for a double ended pin so it would not matter. The so called hammer could be installed packwards ( a collar the firing pin fit into) and again there wsa no reason not to make it double ended so it would not matter.

Yes the pistol grip could fall off.....if the gunner and his weapon squad leader did not inspect to see the retaining spring bent toward the gun. This could have been fixed with a spring detent pin like the takedown pins on the M-16 or with simply a c clip that would fit the pin.

Yes barrel change could have been better, but when it was adopted it beat the 1919 Browning all to heck on ease of barrel change.

Yes the bolt had to be to the rear to load a belt and this was a problem for untrained persons.

The only gun I had trouble with was one used to pieces by the training committee at Ft. Knox that was flat worn out. It had feed tray issues ( likely from hundreds of trainees trying to load with the bolt forward) and so I had a failure to feed that resulted in an out ofbattery firing when the feed tray was opened. Interesting event in the dark.

I saw a lot more problems with the M-16A1 over nine years than with the M-60s and I saw a lot of M-60s.

The issue of split recievers because of the welding changing the temper of the metal was a serious thing and we always checked to see the guns had the R designator for the rebuild to correct that. I hear from collectors that this did not always work, but I never saw a cracked gun either.

Oddly when I taught British Canadian French and German troops to use the M-60 there were always some that liked it better than their own armies gun. SOme of our guys liked the MG42 and FN MAg better odder still not one GI preferred the aa52 and the french looked embarassed by it.

-kBob

[missouri dave]

I carried an m60 back when m16a1's were the rifle of the day. I thought the m60 was a fine weapon in every way. Reasonably accurate and in my experience reliable.

[egg250]

I have some limited experience with the M60E3 from about 20 years ago. The most trouble we had was with worn out guns. The guns that were set up properly and not worn out gave no trouble at all.

[medalguy]

Most of the problems that developed with the M60 were the result of inadequate training. This is true of most problems with any kind of equipment also.

It needs to be remembered that the M60 development began immediately following WWII and the requirements were those faced during WWII, not the requirements of a jungle war in southeast Asia twenty years in the future. When the history of the gun is taken into consideration, the design was pretty darn good. Could it have been better? Of course, but I wouldn't really call it "flawed". More like "outdated by 1965" I'd say.

[ironhead7544]

The M60 was designed to be a lightweight. Used aluminum. OK but requires a lot of maintenance and regular inspections. Was never intended to be a SAW but ended up as one in VN. The majority by far who carried this gun there liked it. I think we switched over to the FN because it will last longer.

[gunner69]

kBob, Late warII the US Army tried to convert a MG-42 to 30-06. They forgot the difference of case length and the result was a disaster. So they combined the MG-42 and FG-42 to design the M-60. On the early guns we used to add beer cans so the belt would feed more reliably in VN. I later had a lot of trigger time on the MG3 (MG-42 in 7.62x51). You could use a heavier bolt (Italian) to slow the rate of fire. It would have been easier for the US to fix the first <deleted> up and field a good weapon. Like the M-16 the M-60 had it's problems. As heavy as it was I had no problems with it myself.

[rodinal220]

Small Arms review ran an article on this a few years ago.One of the guys that runs US Ordnance was trying to revive the M60. He found that many of the parts would not interchange between all the different M60 evolutions/variants and the stockpiles the military had made it a logistic nightmare.
He went on to point out the gas piston being easily reversed(not GI proof) causing the MG to become a single shot.

Others have stated they found some of the die cast and plastic parts on the M60 to be cheap and not overly robust.The bipod being attached to the barrel and the gas system housing.Safety wiring the gas cylinder shut,grip housing not held in place by captive pins,Many other complaints about durability of parts and the receiver being stretched due to being too thin or lack of better materials at the time.

The M60 should have been a great MG,combining features of the MG42 and FG42, Lewis gun,but turned out to be mediocre.The weapon needed a serious PIP program a long time ago.

Most troops that handled it called it the PIG,but carry a M240 and you will want the M60,especially in the M60E4/MK43MG configuration.The biggest gripe against the M240 for dismounted use is the weight,hence FN came out with the MK 48 Mod 0,but it has not been adopted for wide scale use( USSOCOM),its all about money and politics.

[Coop45]

Imagine how much ammo needed to be carried to feed a MG-42. Ouch, my aching back!! The M-60 may not have been perfect, but it surely felt good to have one along for a stroll through the bushes.

[Averageman]

The M240 is a much better weapon, easier to maintain and more reliable.

[HorseSoldier]

They were around when I first got in back in the early 90s and as a young E-nothing I got to lug them around some. The ones we had were problematic, but a lot of that was due to the guns being pretty clapped out and had a tendency for individual guns to have more "personality" than most weapons.

For a weapon to lug around patrolling, in the assault, and that sort of thing, I'd prefer a well maintained M60 over a 240 for ergonomic reasons -- the 60 is just easier handling (though the PKM is notably superior to either in that respect). Once you're in the prone and chugging rounds through it, though, I'd go with the 240.

[wlewisiii]

M240 any day & twice on Sunday. POS M60 was a bad attempt at forcing the MG42 belt feed onto the FG42/Lewis MG action.

[mljdeckard]

By the time I saw them they were all hammered. I very much prefer the 240.

At the same time, contrast that to the M-2. It's not like THOSE receivers were made yesterday either, and they still tick just fine.

[Trent]

They're also a heck of a lot thicker. :)

[MasterSergeantA]

I carried the M-60 back in '72 and we called it the 'pig' because it was so heavy. Others may have had other reasons. The guns ran well if they were properly maintained and assembled.

In 1990 I was in Honduras and was working on Honduran army M-60s that were completely hosed. When I left they worked...for how long is anyone's guess.

As an advisor to the Iraqi army in 2005, my team had the 240 and I liked it a lot. I would say it didn't require quite the TLC that the pigs did, but I made my guys maintain ALL of our weapons the way I had learned a long time ago, so making a comparison would be difficult.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

My very first "job" when I got to my unit in Vietnam, January '68 was as an M-60 gunner. I never had a problem with it (that wasn't my fault) and one ugly morning, it took over for my TC's main gun after he burned out his M2HB and then went on to blow up our spare! My 60 must have gone through a couple thousand rounds that day between me and my TC and was a real TIMEX ... took a lickin' and kept on tickin'!

I think any faults it had could have been overcome/were overcome (given a you tube video I saw recently where the shooter just held the trigger down and dumped a TON of ammo through it without stopping), but you go to war with what ya' got ... not what ya' want!

Just a gunt's 2 cents worth.

[Eb1]

I was born in 1975, and I have never shot the M-60. But I would like to say that I rather like the M-60 as it saved my father's life in VN, more than once I have been told, and allowed him to come home so I could have life on this earth.
Here's to the M-60!!!


I'd like to also say that my thought's go out to the young men that didn't get out of that Jungle.

[EMS_92]

Dad carried one in Vietnam and had nothing but good things to say about the weapon. However, like with every other bad thing that happened to him over there, including what it took to keep the weapon acting right, he never spoke of it...guess it means it took alot of effort to keep it running.

[Deanimator]

A leaf spring provided tension to two pins that held the trigger housing group to the receiver. It was very easily dislodged, and lost when it sprung off into the brush. We'd usually wire it down, but of course it made taking the gun apart impossible without wirecutters.
I recall running through a field of tall grass with one during ROTC training in the '70s. I suddenly found myself with the pistol grip in one hand and the rest of the gun in the other and they weren't physically connected. I THINK I found the pin and leaf spring eventually.

It's the ONLY firearm I've ever used where you HAVE to jerk the trigger. Otherwise it jams, pretty much every time.

The M60 isn't as bad as the Chauchat, but what is?

[12Bravo20]

I was a 60 gunner for most of my time in the Army. I only had a problem one time with any of the M60's I carried. That one issue was do to a newbie armorer playing with weapons in the arms room and dry firing everything. I used the M60 in every type of environment from extreme cold, tropical jungle, to the desert and they never failed me. The M60 is like an old car, sometimes you have to tinker with them to run the way you want it too. We would add spacers behind the buffer to increase rate of fire along with other tweaks.

[Deltaboy]

I got to play with the M 60 for a week long ROTC camp back in the late 1980's. For my limited time with it to me it was a blast.