US Army machine gun contract

Slater

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
1,405
Location
AZ
From today's (23 Sep24) DoD contract announcements. I was under the impression that the US military retired the M60 long ago, so maybe these are for a foreign customer?

U.S. Ordnance,* Sparks, Nevada, was awarded a $14,960,325 firm-fixed-price contract for M60E4 and M60E6 machine guns, spare parts and accessories, conversion kits and training. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 21, 2029. Army Contracting Command, Newark, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-24-D-0051).

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3914743/
 
What most people don't know, the M60 has been upgraded over the years. The newer versions are nothing like the old version.

Another thing most people don't know, the M240 is just an updated version of the MAG-58 machine gun.

Both guns have been around for decades but have gone through updates and upgrades.

I would love to get behind an M60 again, always liked be a gunner.
 
I'm interested to see where the updated M60's are going. The M240 has been used as a coax gun for a very long time in the M60 series tanks and derivatives. All of our M60 based Combat Engineer Vehicles used the M240 as the coax gun.

My primary weapon for most of my time as a private to specialist was the M60. I had senior NCO's that served in Vietnam show me how to keep the M60 running like a Timex watch.
 
The 240B included the rather nifty feature of the FN MAG in that removing the barrel did not remove the bipod and a big chunk of the gas system.

The uses of the M-240A as a coax in the Abrams tank led to a lot of use in the Army. The fact that it was slightly more "soldier proof" during field stripping helping a lot.
The Mk22/M-60E5 put a bunch of Product Improvements from the 240 into the M60. This included linking something like 5000 rounds together and doing a demonstration "mag dump" in non-stop. The E5 was not as compact as it could have been, so now we see the M-60E6 being offered. Which has a lot going for it. It's about the size of the whiz-bang XM-250 SAW, and using in-inventory ammo and links (7.62nato).

The US$64 million (possibly billion) question being will it have a coax capability as well as aircraft mounting compatibility. (There are a lot of M-60 still in aviation use.)
 
I went in weighing 120 pounds and was up to 135 pounds when I got out. I asked why skinny guys like me always got stuck with the M60 and the answer was that we made smaller targets.

And it doesn't matter if it is the M60 or M240, the assistant gunner has it way worse than the gunner when it comes to all the weight being carried.
 
Last edited:
I think they must be for a foreign enduser. The M240 series MG has fully replaced all M60 variants in the army and usmc, as it is a more reliable and robust system than any M60 variant. The last time I saw the M60 in service was around 05, and they were the D variant on helos. They were replaced in country by M240 D variants, and the M60D's were going to be shipped back to the US for either destruction or mothballing, but my unit rescued a quantity of them. We used them on vehicles as back-up systems to the main turret weapons (MK47 AGL's, M2 50 cals, and M134 miniguns). Some were also placed on standard M122 tripods on guard towers. This reutilization wasn't typical, as we had more latitude than most units when it came to these things. In SOCOM, the M60E4 which was designated the MK43 soldiered on for a while in SOCOM, primarily in NAVSPECWAR units, but was replaced SOCOM-wide by the superior FN MK48 LMG starting around 2004, and was fully integrated by about 2008 in SOCOM. I don't believe the MK48 has been issued outside of SOCOM yet. Some MK43/M60A4 MGs were released from NAVSPECWAR (having been replaced by the MK48) and saw limited use by some USG contractors overseas. The last time I had my hands on one was around 2015, I never saw any in afg as a contractor but I was told that some MK43s had made the trip to iraq.
I suppose M60 variants MIGHT be in use in the conventional navy or usaf, but it seems to me that with all of the M240s and M249s available, even those services would have upgraded by now away from these legacy weapons and the support required for them, but I could be wrong. Of course, different variants of M60s will probably always be in arms rooms of SF units and the schoolhouse, but not as deployable mission weapons- they are maintained with other obsolete US and foreign weapons for training purposes, and don't even leave CONUS as "mission equipment".
Even with the improvements of the later M60 variants over the older VN era legacy M60s, the newer ones did not have the reliability of the M240 or the MK48, or the expected service life. This is due to the metalurgy in the receivers- metal fatigue would cause them to stretch "out of spec" and worsen the reliability issues. Even on the newer M60 variants, there were still components that could be accidentally installed backwards. The biggest advantage the improved M60 variants have over the M240 is lighter weight, but this is offset by reliability and controlability, especially in sustained fire. The only advantage the light M60 variants have over the MK48 is a SLOWER rate of fire- about 600 RPM VS about 700 RPM. In my opinion, about 500 RPM is the perfect rate for a general purpose 7.62 NATO machine gun.
 
Even with the improvements of the later M60 variants over the older VN era legacy M60s, the newer ones did not have the reliability of the M240 or the MK48, or the expected service life. This is due to the metalurgy in the receivers- metal fatigue would cause them to stretch "out of spec" and worsen the reliability issues. Even on the newer M60 variants, there were still components that could be accidentally installed backwards. The biggest advantage the improved M60 variants have over the M240 is lighter weight, but this is offset by reliability and controlability, especially in sustained fire. The only advantage the light M60 variants have over the MK48 is a SLOWER rate of fire- about 600 RPM VS about 700 RPM. In my opinion, about 500 RPM is the perfect rate for a general purpose 7.62 NATO machine gun.

All of the M60's in service as of 1996 also had issues with extractors breaking from constant dry firing. I also have to agree that around 500 RPM is a sweet spot. I loved shooting the M2 and M3A1 with their slower rate of fire. I will say that shooting the M2 with an aircraft bolt was fun with its higher cyclic rate, but man was that rough on the guns. We scrounged up an aircraft bolt for one of our M2's. It was fun until the SMG caught us with it.
 
A shooting bud of mine worked at Anniston Army Depot, and the time period under discussion had to be around 2005.

He was on the line, removing plastic grips (trigger group grips?) from new M60's, before these M60's were sent to Captain Crunch. He asked why he was doing this. Management informed him that there were National Guard units using M60's in Iraq, and their M60's were old, falling apart, and needed replacement grips. He then asked, "why don't we send them these new M60's to replace their old M60's?" and was told that a weapon transfer took too much work. I guess the bureaucracy found transferring weapons from an Anniston Army Depot property book to another overseas, was tedious and time consuming, and it was just easier to destroy perfectly good new weapons, to salvage the grips.

And of course, the guys in the field are none the wiser.

I would not put it past this administration that these parts are not going to be used by Americans. It is possible hat these M60 parts are going to be sent free as foreign aid to some "Ally" who has a bunch of old US M60's. Just look at the "Users" at the end of this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun
 
That users list is interesting.
Ya got to scratch your head on a few of them, and ask like, WHY THEM?

Might as well as keep overseas US made M60 machine guns working, before our boys are deployed to defend those countries.

The US is obligated by treaty to defend about 67 countries, and over a billion people.

U.S. Collective Defense Arrangements

https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/index.htm

The currency of America is not the dollar, it is the blood of our young men.
 
The Danish Arny apparently adopted the M60E6 a few years ago. From Wikipedia:

"The M60E6 is an improvement on the M60E4 and the latest M60 variant. It won against the HK121 in the Danish Army's GPMG replacement program to replace the M/62 in March 2014. The weight has been reduced to 9.27 kg (20.4 lb), 2.23 kg (4.9 lb) lighter than the M/62. Its rate of fire of around 500–650 rounds per minute (RPM)[31] is significantly less than the Danish M/62's 1,200 RPM, but it allows for better control, greater accuracy, more conservation of ammunition, more versatile firing positions, and less risk of collateral damage from losing control while shooting. The M60E6 features a redesigned quick-change barrel assembly with an offset barrel handle, which is also used to carry the weapon and allows for the replacement of a hot barrel without using protective gloves. Changes to the rail system and bipod have been made, and a significant number of internal improvements have also increased reliability."
 
He was on the line, removing plastic grips (trigger group grips?) from new M60's, before these M60's were sent to Captain Crunch. He asked why he was doing this. Management informed him that there were National Guard units using M60's in Iraq, and their M60's were old, falling apart, and needed replacement grips. He then asked, "why don't we send them these new M60's to replace their old M60's?" and was told that a weapon transfer took too much work. I guess the bureaucracy found transferring weapons from an Anniston Army Depot property book to another overseas, was tedious and time consuming, and it was just easier to destroy perfectly good new weapons, to salvage the grips.
It was the same drawn out paperwork to send weapons to Anniston for repair. I was allowed to do some depot level work on weapons when I was stationed in Germany because it was easier and faster to have me work on them versus sending them back to the states. My primary MOS (job) at that time was 44E machinist. I also did some depot level maintenance on other equipment too. Again it was easier and quicker just to have me do the work.
 
It was the same drawn out paperwork to send weapons to Anniston for repair. I was allowed to do some depot level work on weapons when I was stationed in Germany because it was easier and faster to have me work on them versus sending them back to the states. My primary MOS (job) at that time was 44E machinist. I also did some depot level maintenance on other equipment too. Again it was easier and quicker just to have me do the work.

As you found, Bureaucrats create work for other Bureaucrats. Now, unaccountable bureaucrats are creating work for the entire nation, it is just what they do.

I came to the conclusion that DoD Management follows these three rules:

1. Maximize the profits of the prime contractors
2. Minimize scandal
3 Take the path of least resistance.

The incentive system for bureaucrats is different from those on the front lines. Properly filled out forms are more important than getting needed supplies to front line troops. This is a very interesting book that touches on the American "bureaucracy uber allis"

General Kenney Reports: A Personal History Of The Pacific War

General Kenney has to actively fight Supply Colonels who would not issue airplane parts to front line units because the forms were incorrectly filled out. These Colonels had thrived and been promoted in a system where winning a war was irrelevant, but perfectly filled out forms in well organized filing cabinets was the means to advancement.

In the mean time, the Japanese were taking over the whole of the South Pacific, because there was not enough Allied Airplanes in the air, and of course very few ground units. Gen Kenney actually had men going to crash sites in New Guinea to find usable spare parts!
 
I'm interested to see where the updated M60's are going. The M240 has been used as a coax gun for a very long time in the M60 series tanks and derivatives. All of our M60 based Combat Engineer Vehicles used the M240 as the coax gun.

My primary weapon for most of my time as a private to specialist was the M60. I had senior NCO's that served in Vietnam show me how to keep the M60 running like a Timex watch.
Interesting history:

The M60 tank was designed to use the M73 as the coaxial machine gun. The USMC refused to to adopt the M73 for the M48 or M60 due to poor reliability. This lead to the the development of the M60E2 fixed version. A major hurdle was the short overall length of the M60 wound up putting the gas cylinder behind the gun mantlet, inside the turret, with excessive gun gas being expelled in the crew compartment. The solution was to fix a tube to the front vent port of the gas cylinder and run it up to the muzzle inside the tube in the mantlet.
 
I will say that shooting the M2 with an aircraft bolt was fun with its higher cyclic rate, but man was that rough on the guns. We scrounged up an aircraft bolt for one of our M2's. It was fun until the SMG caught us with it.
😊
 
That basically 15 million is for 500 weapons. We're talking $30,000 per unit. Obviously some politician want some work in his district and a sizeable kickback to go with it.

The cost of an M-60 was about $6000 dollars (and let's face it even then the military was grossly overcharged). Wanting 5 times that much for a redesigned weapon that is easier, quicker and cheaper to produce is blatant theft.
 
From what I've been told (grew up in an army family, then served 1968- 1971), every government supplier soon learns the hard way to charge a hefty premium on anything to the government - since it went some ways to make up for the wait to get paid and all the extra paperwork (being polite here...). Not exactly the best system, but when you also add the government's response to all the fraud and other misconduct that have occurred (since we became a country..), and that's on both sides of the equation on both the purchase and the vendor ends - it won't be getting better any time soon...
 
That basically 15 million is for 500 weapons. We're talking $30,000 per unit. Obviously some politician want some work in his district and a sizeable kickback to go with it.

The cost of an M-60 was about $6000 dollars (and let's face it even then the military was grossly overcharged). Wanting 5 times that much for a redesigned weapon that is easier, quicker and cheaper to produce is blatant theft.

That's no different than the $500 claw hammers. I broke one and went to Central Hardware and bought a replacement for $5.
 
Back
Top