Weight, reliability and reassembly. You defintely appreciate the weight after carrying one or the other for 25 miles or so. That is even comparing with the last m-60's with the shortened bbl and forward pistol grip. Reliability, well that speaks for itself. Yes, you can "break" an m-60 by putting it back together wrong. The 240 is more idiot proof. I know they are always making better idiots so stand by to stand by.....
M240 vs. M60
- Thread starter aerod1
- Start date
- Status
Quiet
Member
Well, the FN MAG (M240) has been in service with the UK & Belgium military for about 50 years now.
So far, a better idiot hasn't been made to break it.
Deanimator
Member
Marine tankers were the only ones to use the M60 as a coax gun. The Army used the hideous M-73, and M-219, basically full-auto Martini-Henrys from a design by an Australian named Russell Robinson. Their complete and total failure were the impetus for the adoption of the M240 as a coax gun. That gave the 240 a foot in the door to replace the M-60. The similarly hideous M-85 .50 was replaced by the Browning M-2HB, many of which were supposedly culled from decommissioned Navy ships.
I must have been thinking of something else. Isn't there one that fires 5.56 that they were trying to replace the 60 with?
The big advantage being that the unit now only needed one type of ammo.
Like I've said before my individual weapon for most of my career was an IBM Selectric
When I was in service in early 80's, our M60's at the 24th at Ft. Stewart were very good, I think it all depends on how they are kept up. But sounds like the M240 is a improvement...it all depends on how they are kept up, our .50 cal were pretty much junk, old, an you could very rarely count on them, I think they just didn't have new parts for them, probably a budget thing, so I think some with bad experiences with the M60 had the same problem.
Isn't the 5.56 full auto the SAW that Rockwell is talking about?
Isn't the 5.56 full auto the SAW that Rockwell is talking about?
Uhg. The M-60 machine gun. Proof that we truly do have imbeciles in the weapons procurement process for the military.
The ones we had were extremely spotty in reliability no matter how much the armorer babied them. Nobody wanted to hump it. We might as well have used most of ours as doorstops.
Our M-240s were vehicle mounted at the time and yet to be outfitted for dismounted squad use, and it was pretty obvious they were the more solid and sound design. Excellent cyclic rate when laying down effective area fire far downrange.
The ones we had were extremely spotty in reliability no matter how much the armorer babied them. Nobody wanted to hump it. We might as well have used most of ours as doorstops.
Our M-240s were vehicle mounted at the time and yet to be outfitted for dismounted squad use, and it was pretty obvious they were the more solid and sound design. Excellent cyclic rate when laying down effective area fire far downrange.
Quiet
Member
Rockwell1 said:
Saco Defense M-60 = 7.62x51mm
(FN Minimi) M-249 SAW = 5.56x45mm
(FN MAG) M-240 = 7.62x51mm
When introduced, the M-249 SAW replaced the M-60 in the squad automatic weapon role and the M-60 was used in the platoon/company level.
The M-249 SAW may be replaced in the near future by the winner of the IAR trials.
The M60 was never in the squad automatic weapon role in the US Army. The MTOE called for the automatic riflemen to be issued the clothespin type bipod for their M16A1. I'm not aware of any unit that actually issued them out though. Mostly they gathered dust in the arms room and were counted once a month along with the other sensitive items.
I fired off the issue bipod exactly one time in 28 years 11 months of service. On a night fire range in basic training in 1974.
Devilfrog
Member
I've carried the M60E3 many miles and fired thousands of rounds through it while in the Corps. Aside from blanks, which cause problems in most guns, and the leaf spring (which you had to wire or you'd loose your pistol grip) I had no problems with. I would take a M60E3 to combat anytime. With that said, the 240 did have problems during evals for the Corps back in 90-91 (as most weapons do) such as spent casings bouncing back into the action, those issues were resolved and now an excellent gun is being deployed.
The M240 has the superior rate of fire, reliability is a tie between the two and weight goes to the M60E3. So both work and continue to plant enemies in the ground.
Just my $.02
The M240 has the superior rate of fire, reliability is a tie between the two and weight goes to the M60E3. So both work and continue to plant enemies in the ground.
Just my $.02
Titan6
member
The M-60s I fired were terrible as Jeff was saying. With blanks they were even worse. Whoever was the gunner had to figure out how to make that thing work and once he did it worked most of the time. But figuring it out could take a while.
The 240 is much better. Given the light vehicles the Army has and that now all HMVV mount crew served weapons it is "better" for most situations than the .50. It certainly is much easier to handle, deploy and response times are much quicker.
Some units have started issuing the extendable fore grip bipod. I never saw anyone use one outside of a range. This is a big improvement but I don't see the point in most tactical situations.
The 240 is much better. Given the light vehicles the Army has and that now all HMVV mount crew served weapons it is "better" for most situations than the .50. It certainly is much easier to handle, deploy and response times are much quicker.
Some units have started issuing the extendable fore grip bipod. I never saw anyone use one outside of a range. This is a big improvement but I don't see the point in most tactical situations.
chuckusaret
member
Hey, the M60 replaced the 30 cal MG in 1956/57 and was still in use when I retired in 1977. It served its purpose well in combat in its time. You guys are trying to compare a 65 Mustang to a new Saleem Mustang, they only have one thing in common, they are called automobiles.
Chuck,
The M60 and the M240 (FN MAG 58) are contemporaries. Both designed about the same time. Most Western armies chose the MAG 58. And it wasn't because they didn't try to sell the M60 overseas. No one but those people we gave it to under the Foreign Military Sales Program ever bought them.
I would bet that there are more Model 1919s (the gun the M60 replaced) in service worldwide right now then there are M60s.
It's funny, when I enlisted in 74 I had heard and read about how bad the M16 was. So when I got to a unit, I wanted to be a machine gunner and talked my way onto a gun crew. Because if we went to war, I wanted to be armed with something reliable. It didn't take me long to realize the M16A1 was completely reliable and the M60 wasn't.
Oh there were plenty of little tricks and tweaks you'd learn to keep them running and you quickly learned what spares to pack around, I learned well enough that later in my career after I became a platoon sergeant I was in charge of machine gun training for the entire battalion in one unit I was in. But the program would have been more effective if we could have spent the time we trained on keeping them running on employing them.
The M60 and the M240 (FN MAG 58) are contemporaries. Both designed about the same time. Most Western armies chose the MAG 58. And it wasn't because they didn't try to sell the M60 overseas. No one but those people we gave it to under the Foreign Military Sales Program ever bought them.
I would bet that there are more Model 1919s (the gun the M60 replaced) in service worldwide right now then there are M60s.
It's funny, when I enlisted in 74 I had heard and read about how bad the M16 was. So when I got to a unit, I wanted to be a machine gunner and talked my way onto a gun crew. Because if we went to war, I wanted to be armed with something reliable. It didn't take me long to realize the M16A1 was completely reliable and the M60 wasn't.
Oh there were plenty of little tricks and tweaks you'd learn to keep them running and you quickly learned what spares to pack around, I learned well enough that later in my career after I became a platoon sergeant I was in charge of machine gun training for the entire battalion in one unit I was in. But the program would have been more effective if we could have spent the time we trained on keeping them running on employing them.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
I can assure you that if you put the BFA against the side of an M577 and lean into it a bit, you can dump an half a belt of blanks without a failure. I can also assure that you if you demonstrate this fabulous technique while Top and the XO are in the crew compartment said M577, you will have the fabulous opportunity to spend several days in the motorpool crosstraining on how to clean a wide variety of implements outside of your MOS.
lefteyedom
Member
I was married to the M60 at Camp Bullis in 1984 and never stopped loving her till the USAF took her away around 2003.
M60 was a woman, if you gave her what she wanted she would love you long time. If you did not listen to her and take care of her needs she would let you down.
One of the worse way was that if gunner for some reason put the safety on to stop a runway gun. The Oprod would run over the safety/sear then jam into it on the way back. God help you if you did not have the means to hammer out the pistol grip pins!!
She hates blanks period and few things sucked more than getting burned doing a barrel change ugh!
But when it came to doing vehicle over watch at TCP nothing was better than M-60. 7.62mm Full metal jacket trumps Chevy or Toyota every time.
"get on it get off"
"get on it get off"
"get on it get off"
"get on it get off"
Did anybody really use the T&E in the real world?
M60 was a woman, if you gave her what she wanted she would love you long time. If you did not listen to her and take care of her needs she would let you down.
One of the worse way was that if gunner for some reason put the safety on to stop a runway gun. The Oprod would run over the safety/sear then jam into it on the way back. God help you if you did not have the means to hammer out the pistol grip pins!!
She hates blanks period and few things sucked more than getting burned doing a barrel change ugh!
But when it came to doing vehicle over watch at TCP nothing was better than M-60. 7.62mm Full metal jacket trumps Chevy or Toyota every time.
"get on it get off"
"get on it get off"
"get on it get off"
"get on it get off"
Did anybody really use the T&E in the real world?
Yes! In fact if you were one of my machine gunners and tried that free gun BS, you'd be in a world of hurt. I always asked my gun crews when they whined about carrying tripods and T&Es if they wanted to maneuver under or near covering fire from a bipod or free mounted gun. None of them ever answered in the affirmative. Don't feel bad though, machine gunnery has been a dying art in the US armed forces since the end of WWII.
we had M60D's on our UH-60A Blackhawks in the early 80's they worked fine for the few hundred rounds a year we put through them,. It was however a pain in the ass for me to sign out 2 of em and carry the darn things 1/2 a mile to my whirlybird along with my flight gear.
woodybrighton
member
suprise suprise aircrew start whining before the rotors turning
the RAF got some m60's gratis with chinooks now replaced with chain guns.
M60 just isn't as good as a gpmg fn mag or m240.
most belt fed guns don't like blanks gpmg flawless with live rounds not so much with blank but needed a spacer to work properly with blanks.
put enough rounds through one to make the barrel glow red then start to go translucent took hours to cool down
the RAF got some m60's gratis with chinooks now replaced with chain guns.
M60 just isn't as good as a gpmg fn mag or m240.
most belt fed guns don't like blanks gpmg flawless with live rounds not so much with blank but needed a spacer to work properly with blanks.
put enough rounds through one to make the barrel glow red then start to go translucent
took hours to cool downrunrabbitrun
member
I got my hands on one the early 80's.
They sucked as far as I'm concerned.
At least the one I was assigned did.
I hated that thing and is one of the reasons
I slung it across the room after returning from a training exercise at Ft. Stewart.
My battle contingency plan was to make the darn thing INOP and go with my
M16/M203 and leave that POS M60 behind, destroyed in the field.
Yep, I was assigned both platforms (M60 and M16/M203)
and there wasn't a second guy to feed the ammo, change the barrel
or help carry the load. I guess we were short of help in the 80's.
Oh and the training was minimal at best.
I suppose had I been properly trained...
maybe it would of been an effective suppressive weapon,
till it jammed, the barrel melted, or the POS came apart in my hands.
They sucked as far as I'm concerned.
At least the one I was assigned did.
I hated that thing and is one of the reasons
I slung it across the room after returning from a training exercise at Ft. Stewart.
My battle contingency plan was to make the darn thing INOP and go with my
M16/M203 and leave that POS M60 behind, destroyed in the field.
Yep, I was assigned both platforms (M60 and M16/M203)
and there wasn't a second guy to feed the ammo, change the barrel
or help carry the load. I guess we were short of help in the 80's.
Oh and the training was minimal at best.
I suppose had I been properly trained...
maybe it would of been an effective suppressive weapon,
till it jammed, the barrel melted, or the POS came apart in my hands.
Deanimator
Member
The Aussies voluntarily adopted it. They must have been drunk.
Titan6
member
I don't think that was the proper employment technique. Of course neither was stuffing the cigarette butt into the end of the and barrel which would make a nice seal. I wonder if Jeff would have handed out an butt chewing for that trick?
T&Es are pretty much a requirement for all M2s; even mounted. But on a properly mounted M240 you can go free gun so long as accuracy is not an issue. You won't hit much past 500 meters but the odds of engagement at that range are pretty low these days. With the T&E man size targets at 900 meters and vehicle size targets at 1200 meters are a piece of cake, so long as they are not moving.
My brother was a team leader for a 240B team and loves the thing. He says the only draw back is the bipod, the thing snaps off like a dry twig when you dive into a hasty fighting position. And you need to tweek the gas port a little to get it fire faster...
rklessdriver
Member
We finally got rid of our M60E3's in about July or August of 1995. As an 0331 I was happy to see them go and get my hands on the M240G at the time. Our 60s by the time we got rid of them were worn out and very much in need of replacement.
I personally found the M240 to be simplier and easier to maintain. It is heavier but it didn't really make any differnce to a 21yr old stud, like I was back then. Of course this may be the reason I'm a 34yr old hurtin every day MOFO currently.
Will
I personally found the M240 to be simplier and easier to maintain. It is heavier but it didn't really make any differnce to a 21yr old stud
, like I was back then. Of course this may be the reason I'm a 34yr old hurtin every day MOFO currently. Will
- Status
