US Army machine gun contract

[jeff-10]

I was an 11B in the mid-90s when we replaced the M60 with the M240 in the 101st. I then PCSd to the 2ID that still had the 60s. The 240 is a far superior platform and the additional weight wasn't all that noticeable for the average infantryman.

Based on current geopolitical events, I think those may be headed to Israel. I believe they still use them. Probably still have vehicles that use them.

 

[Turkeytider]

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 Some MK43/M60A4 MGs were released from NAVSPECWAR (having been replaced by the MK48) and saw limited use by some USG contractors overseas.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.

Seems I saw somewhere where the Army/ SOCOM was implementing the 6.5 Creedmoor round for a new machine gun and/ or sniper weapon?

 

[CapnMac]

Many military contracts require that full sets of spares and hand tools are provided with the contract items. At the same time, very little of actual R&D costs are ever in the paid contract amount. That's why hammers can cost a c-note. The supplying contractor has to go buy x number of tool boxes, with y tools inside. These are all put on a pallet and shrink wrapped for delivery, often separately from the contract items themselves. This applies to missiles, aircraft, tanks, even ships, as well as small arms. It all adds up.

SOCOM was implementing the 6.5 Creedmoor round for a new machine gun

No, it's a super-duper new round, the 6.8x51 which has some ludicrous high chamber pressure to move 7mm bullets out to a kilometer. Basically similar performance as 7.62nato at 800m, just another 200m further out. Whether it actually can remains to be seen. Needs a bimetalic case for the pressures and is hard hitting. Enough so, there's a service-equivalent .277fury used for training.

 

[SterlingBullet]

Looks like they are needed by the Mexican drug cartels. Check out this info from the Wall Street Journal:

The American Guns That Mexican Cartels Covet

https://archive.is/Z37E0

Here are some of the more coveted weapons getting smuggled into Mexico from the U.S.
THE MINIGUN
BARRETT
THE BELT-FED M249 SAW
ZAPATA, “EL JEFE” AND “EL GRITO” PISTOLS

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

One of my cousins was a caterpillar operator in Vietnam around 1967. He told us that when they dropped them out to grub out forward operating bases he would "borrow" an M-60 to mount on his cat to return fire on the jungle when rounds started coming from the jungle they were clearing.

 

[shoobe01]

As a couple said: aircraft. Maybe some other vehicles, but if the Army never pays to certify a weapon for a platform it is verboten. Last I heard, 240s are not certified to stick on pintles in the sides or back of Chinooks. So their arms rooms have M60s. Yes, they get new ones occasionally also, yup.

 

[Mk VII]

Few of those users paid money for them, unless it was with MDAP funds which meant they were essentially being given away.

That users list is interesting.
Ya got to scratch your head on a few of them, and ask like, WHY THEM?

 

[Mk VII]

As a couple said: aircraft. Maybe some other vehicles, but if the Army never pays to certify a weapon for a platform it is verboten. Last I heard, 240s are not certified to stick on pintles in the sides or back of Chinooks. So their arms rooms have M60s. Yes, they get new ones occasionally also, yup.

That's probably why we ended up with M60s on the Chinooks we bought/leased. No one else in the British military used them, (nor would they want to) and the complication of adding this single-use arm to the inventory has nothing to recommend it.

 

[Slamfire]

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Mexican Mafia loves the XM-134 Minigun, the 50 cal Barrett, the M249 SAWS, and Beretta M92FS 9mm's. Apparently the M92FS are handed out to the disposable mafia members.

Maybe our Government ought to be supplying the Mexican Mafia direct with repair parts to these weapons, and just cut out the middle men. After all, how did the Mexican Mafia acquire XM-134 Miniguns and SAWS if it were not for CONUS and OCONUS friends?

 

[Turkeytider]

Many military contracts require that full sets of spares and hand tools are provided with the contract items. At the same time, very little of actual R&D costs are ever in the paid contract amount. That's why hammers can cost a c-note. The supplying contractor has to go buy x number of tool boxes, with y tools inside. These are all put on a pallet and shrink wrapped for delivery, often separately from the contract items themselves. This applies to missiles, aircraft, tanks, even ships, as well as small arms. It all adds up.


No, it's a super-duper new round, the 6.8x51 which has some ludicrous high chamber pressure to move 7mm bullets out to a kilometer. Basically similar performance as 7.62nato at 800m, just another 200m further out. Whether it actually can remains to be seen. Needs a bimetalic case for the pressures and is hard hitting. Enough so, there's a service-equivalent .277fury used for training.

Got it. Could have sworn I saw where the military had expressed an interest in the 6.5 Creedmoor.

 

[CapnMac]

Could have sworn I saw where the military had expressed an interest in the 6.5 Creedmoor.

No, you may be having a perfectly valid rememory there. For one, it's been in the press that way at least once (along with any number of 6.8 rounds). For another, SOCOM has asked for such things before (and normally, SOCOM has discretionary fund to just buy COTS [commercial off the shelf] things).

Now, the COTS cartridge that has always made sense for SOCOM was 300BO. It's multi-purpose, fits in the sort of platform architecture preferred by SOCOM, and the troops are sufficiently higher-trained so as to not uh-oh the Blackout rounds (mostly). But, I'll wager that DoD is not as confident and wants no part of any ammo that can be misfed, once, to deleterious effect.

 

[12Bravo20]

SOCOM has tested quite a few different calibers that aren't Big Army standard. That is basically how we got the 6.8 SPC. Special Forces started looking at something bigger than 5.56 around 2002 and worked with Remington to develop the 6.8X43 round which was named the 6.8 SPC. Th Special Forces Group worked with the Army Marksmanship Unit for development and testing. They tested 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm and 7.62mm bullets and decided on the 6.8mm diameter.

Here are a couple of sources on the subject.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/remington-s-6-8x43-mm-spc-history-performance/
http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartridge-history-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/6-8-spc-complete-guide/

I've seen many articles and videos that speculate where these M60's are going but nothing concrete. So who knows if they are for US military use or destined for overseas sales.

 

[Enfieldier]

Except for the stupid barrel change design, I liked the M60 and had good luck with ones I used. Since I was support, ours were always tripod mounted and the barrel change was made simpler by having the gun attached to the tripod. The asbestos mitten was always missing from the kit though. A green and later brown T-shirt was substituted.

 

[shoobe01]

...Now, the COTS cartridge that has always made sense for SOCOM was 300BO. It's multi-purpose, fits in the sort of platform architecture preferred by SOCOM, and the troops are sufficiently higher-trained so as to not uh-oh the Blackout rounds (mostly). But, I'll wager that DoD is not as confident and wants no part of any ammo that can be misfed, once, to deleterious effect.

Lake City makes .300 BLK for a USG contract. I guess USSOCOM bought a lot of those Rattlers.

 

[Slamfire]

If Government boy were to ask one of his logistical buddies, they could tell him exactly the number of M60's in Army inventory, and the condition. There are various condition codes, the best are issueable, ready to go. Then it goes down to inoperable.

As I understand, the Army inventory records are separate from the Marines, Navy, USAF. The various branches don't play well with each other, and they don't share unless forced to by higher authority.

 

[shoobe01]

As I understand, the Army inventory records are separate from the Marines, Navy, USAF. The various branches don't play well with each other, and they don't share unless forced to by higher authority.

Not just records. The equipment is literally owned separately by each service branch. When they (rarely) transfer something like an aircraft to another branch, there is a bunch of paperwork and sometimes money exchanged for it.

 

[jobu07]

The Army utilizes the 240H on those platforms.

As a couple said: aircraft. Maybe some other vehicles, but if the Army never pays to certify a weapon for a platform it is verboten. Last I heard, 240s are not certified to stick on pintles in the sides or back of Chinooks. So their arms rooms have M60s. Yes, they get new ones occasionally also, yup.

 

[lysanderxiii]

If you are wondering who are using all these M60, it's SOCOM under the Mk 43 moniker.

Seal Teams in particular, prefer the Mk 43 over the M240 due it being a smaller, lighter weapon.

 

[lysanderxiii]

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

That 15 million in addition to the actual machine gun conversions kits and labor to perform the conversion, it includes, a supply of all estimated spare parts required for the life of the program, all of the required accessories (everything from cleaning kits to maintenance kits), training and maintenance material, as well as actual hands-on training.

How much does your $40,000 car/truck cost you over its life time? About $300,000 to $400,000.

 

[Double_J]

I currently work as a Suportability Engineer in the Integrated Logistics Support department for a shipyard building 4 USCG Cutters. My department is in charge of documenting all the Government Furnished Items and Contractor Furnished Items and the required spare parts and technical manuals for this program. You do NOT want to know what some of those manuals and support items cost, it is not cheap. Most of our items are Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) and have solid factory support, but not to the same level as Mil-Spec items.

We also have no itemized list of support materials for these items, nor do we know the expected lifetime for each component and how many spares are required. My prior work experience was in both automotive quality and aerospace quality. Items we can buy from the local hardware depot cannot be used due to lack of traceability for the parts. That is where a bunch of the cost comes from, having a "birth certificate" of the part, not the part cost itself.

 

[12Bravo20]

That 15 million in addition to the actual machine gun conversions kits and labor to perform the conversion, it includes, a supply of all estimated spare parts required for the life of the program, all of the required accessories (everything from cleaning kits to maintenance kits), training and maintenance material, as well as actual hands-on training.

How much does your $40,000 car/truck cost you over its life time? About $300,000 to $400,000.

I fully understand how government contracts work. I use to have to deal with contractors on occasion while I was in the Army. There were times I had to get repair parts directly from the contractors or deal with them on technical details.

 

[Slamfire]

How much does your $40,000 car/truck cost you over its life time? About $300,000 to $400,000.

Might be that much if Government contractors were changing the tires, Government spending is by design, wasteful.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Fuel cost alone for the life of a truck will run upwards of $100,000, it could double depending on how the election goes . . .

 

[Slamfire]

Fuel cost alone for the life of a truck will run upwards of $100,000, it could double depending on how the election goes . . .

Feds must be paying too much for gas, or are driving around in 3 mph armored vehicles. I have one truck, 178,970 miles, total cost for gasoline, $17,862. Another, 87,420 miles, gasoline $5,549.

As long as my body holds out, I do my own oil changes. The cost to pay people to service a vehicle is expensive.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Might be that much if Government contractors were changing the tires, Government spending is by design, wasteful.

An acquaintance of mine has a company with a fleet of eight trucks. His cost for that fleet run around $5 per truck annually, not including fuel. His maintenance practice is not wasteful. There is much more to maintaining a vehicle than changing the tires.

Air filters
Batteries
Belts
Brake fluid
Brake pads
Brake rotors
Cabin filters
Coolant
Coolant flushes
Fuel filters
Oil
Oil filters
Seals
Sensors (failure, biggest cause of unscheduled maintenance)
Transmission fluid
Transmission fluid filters

Individually, they look to be small costs, but over time they add up.