M60 Machine Gun

[Nightcrawler]

When did the M60 first come online?

I ask because the Federation of American Scientists' web page, which has a LOT of great information on US weapon systems, says this:

The M60 Machine Gun has been the US Army's general purpose machine gun since 1950. It fires the standard NATO 7.62 mm round and is used as a general support crew-served weapon. It has a removable barrel which can be easily changed to prevent overheating. The weapon has an integral, folding bipod and can also be mounted on a folding tripod.

Observe.

1950? In 1950, the standard service cartridge was .30-06 (or rather, Caliber .30), and the standard machine guns were the M1919A4, the M1917, and the M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle.

So when DID the M60 first come online?

Just curious. I don't especially like the M60. Many guys I know prefer having a GPMG in the squad, despite the weight (granted, we're mechanized, and don't walk long-long ways). The range and penetration provided by a GPMG certainly are comforting.

I think the US might've been better served adopting the MG3 or MAG-58 way back when, though. The M60 has, well, flaws. Others here are better informed on the specifics; all I know is sometimes the things get pissy and don't stop firing when you let go of the trigger. And the bipod is attached to the barrel; how dumb is that?

 

[Delmar]

Can't find a reference to the exact year, but the M60 has been an issue item since the early 1960's. Your issue must be the original M60 series as the M60E1 and later models has the bipod attached to the gas cylinder.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Tell me...on the new versions, do you have to wire the gas system together to keep it from (apparently) flying apart?

 

[Delmar]

It's been a long time for me-got out after 10 years in 1979. If they are still issuing the same M60's, I would have to say they are pretty worn out, and no telling what is going to fall off.
I did have an instructor show me how to fire the weapon without the trigger group in place. You had to twist the belt to get it to stop firing.
I have heard a lot of complaints about the "Pig", mainly the feed issues. Some of the more experienced gunners used to wire a C-rat can near the feed chute to prevent the belt stoppages which IIRC were fairly common. The 60 was pretty intolerant of short or long rounds in the belt, and they had to be pretty clean too.
Some of the guys in the shop were talking about their favorites in Bosnia and the first Gulf war, and pretty much to a man, the infantry hated the 60 compared to the SAW, while the mech units weren't quite so critical.
Too bad the SAW isn't chambered for the 7.62 NATO, but it does mean you'd be humping two calibers.
Uncontrolled full auto should be a wakeup call to the armorers!

 

[Nightcrawler]

Too bad the SAW isn't chambered for the 7.62 NATO, but it does mean you'd be humping two calibers.

Actually, the SAW IS chambered for 7.62mm NATO. It was originally intended as such, I'm told, but FN is now making a 7.62x51mm version. I doubt it could handle the sustained fire rates of a PK, MAG-58, or MG3, but it'd be pretty handy when properly employed in the automatic rifle role.

 

[Delmar]

Really? I thought the SAW was a 5.56? Are you thinking of the M240?

 

[Nightcrawler]

Forgive....I was confusing.

There is a VERSION of the SAW chambered for 7.62x51mm. The standard M249 is in 5.56x45mm NATO. (Interestingly enough, ours just got "upgraded" to the PIP version; they came back with new feed covers with optics rails...picatinny or weaver or whatever...on them. Not that we'll ever get optics, but still, it looks cool.)

FN Mk. 48 Mod 0: 7.62x51mm Minimi

 

[Delmar]

Which branch are you in Nightcrawler, and what in the world are you doing in the U.P.? AKA deer hunters paradise

 

[Nightcrawler]

I'm in the Army National Guard, and I live here. I WAS going to make my escape this summer, but alas; I've been making better use of my time at my University than I had thought; I'm too close to graduation to transfer now, it'll set me back. So, I've no choice but to suck it up and stay until I'm done. I was VERYMUCH looking forward to this being my last winter here, too. *Sigh*

 

[Delmar]

I know the feeling-spent some of my best summers up there, and some of the worst winters on earth! Haven't been back in a long time-I lived down state but couldn't wait to get up there in the summer time to see my grandpa. He lived about 20 miles from Marquette, and its where I learned to hunt and fish. Grandpa just about had me talked into going to NMU to be a machinist, but for some silly reason, ugly green uniforms looked good back then! After a brief time in Colorado and Wyoming, I've been in Texas for about 20 years, and every time somebody gets panicked about a couple of inches of snow, I just smile....

 

[rayra]

I always thought the M-60 stood for Model 1960?

 

[BigG]

My fading memory seems to tell me the US adopted the 7.62 ctg in 1954, even though the M14 did not appear in troopies hands until I'm going to say 1958 or so. Still very scarce and by the time it was being distributed to most units it was being replaced by the M16 bout 1964. Have no clue about the M60. It was patterned after the German MGs in a way but they should have just stole the design outright and had a good MG instead of a fair one.

 

[Blackcloud6]

I beleive the M60 has been replaced by the M240B in the active Army. I'm not sure if the Guard still has M60s.

BTW, didn't the FN-MAG originally compete against the M60 back in the 50's and now replaces the M60 as the M240B?

 

[Jeff White]

According to Ezell's Small Arms of the World, the M60 was type classified in February 1957. I don't think they were received in any quantity until 1960 or so.

Jeff

 

[OEF_VET]

re: 7.62 M-249

In the 13 OCT 03 issue of Shotgun News, Peter Kokalis did an article on the first FN Minimi and how it was originally chambered in 7.62x51mm.

The M-60 was quite a weapon. Back when I was a grunt, I was the AG for a -60 team for awhile, as well as being the Dragon gunner and and back-up RTO, depending on the situation. (Being the new guy in an understrength platoon can really suck.) Let me tell ya, I loved the 'Pig'. Sure, it had problems, especially if you tried to fire blanks and the BFA wasn't tight. But, you open up with a '60, and everyone hits the dirt, friend, foe, or indifferent. There are few better ways to open an ambush than to let loose with a long burst from a pig.

Of course, the '60 is gone from active duty, having been replaced by the -240. The 240 wieghs a little bit more, but the ROF is significantly higher. IIRC, the rates of fire are ~ 660/minute for the '60 and ~ 1100/minute for the 240. Obviously you wouldn't actually fire 1100 rounds in a one minute time frame, otherwise you'd melt the barrel and turn the gun into a bullet hose.

One day, when I'm rich, I'll find a transferrable M-60 and buy won't I be a happy boy! I can only imagine the grief I'd get from the better half. (That is, she'd harp on me about letting her shoot it too.)

Frank

 

[Correia]

Nightcrawler, there is an old Kokalis article that goes into great detail with all his gripes about the 60. If I recall correctly it was about 8 pages long. I don't know the issue, but it was available in his big green Fighting Firearms compendium.

Now if it is accurate info or not I have no idea as I've never even shot an M60, but it made for interesting reading.

 

[Jeff White]

Corriea said;

there is an old Kokalis article that goes into great detail with all his gripes about the 60. If I recall correctly it was about 8 pages long. Now if it is accurate info or not I have no idea as I've never even shot an M60, but it made for interesting reading.

It's accurate. I have plenty of experience with the M60, both as a gunner and rifle platoon sergeant. We'd have been much better off with either the MG3 or the MAG-58. Of course in those days, it was unthinkable to buy a foreign manufactured weapon.

Jeff

 

[TonyRumore]

I own two M60's and hear the gripes all the time. My experience, firing them in a recreational setting, has been very good. I don't drag my stuff through the mud, but I rarely clean either gun, and they will run through thousands of rounds at a time without a stoppage. The only part that needs routine replacement is the extractor.

Tony Rumore
Tromix Corp

 

[Sunray]

Something is screwy here. 1950? No way. There was no 7.62 NATO in 1950. And I went to those pages too. This one says 1957. Makes more sense. http://www.lcompanyranger.com/usweapons/m60page.htm

 

[Sleuth]

Just for the record:

The MAG 58 is the basis of the M240 (Bravo or Golf). They are just advanced models of the MAG 58.


"What is old becomes new again!"

 

[Nightcrawler]

Sleuth: Yep! We may be way late, but we've finally gotten a good machine gun.

I'm also happy that we've introduced the SAW; we've been without a proper automatic rifle for too long. What's more, the SAW allows for a much higher rate of fire than the COMBLOC equivalent, the RPK-74, since it's belt-fed and has a quick change barrel. (OTOH, the RPK-74 is a lot lighter.)

My biggest gripe with the SAW is its God-awful trigger.

The Russian PK and PKM are superb machine guns too, from what I'm told.

 

[Jeff White]

Sleuth,
How are the M240B and G advanced models? Surely you don't think the handguard we added to it an advancement? We are just now starting to field a tripod and T&E mechanism that approaches the original in utility. We have been firing them off the M122 tripod since we got them.

Jeff

 

[BigG]

Sleuth:

The MAG 58 is the basis of the M240 (Bravo or Golf).

Which are just advanced models of the Browning Automatic Rifle, c. 1918.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Really? I know Browning had huge influence over FN; the MAG-58 has Browning-designed features in it?

 

[Sleuth]

Words have meaning:

I wrote advanced, meaning moved forward.
I did not write improved, meaning made better

As I have only limited trigger time on a 240G, and none on a MAG58, I am not positioned to decide if the gun has been improved. However, I belive that a MAG58 would be an improvement over an M60 in a combat environment.