US still buying M60 machine guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slater

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
1,384
Location
AZ
The following is a recent contract award (source: Defenselink):

U.S. Ordnance Inc.*, Reno, Nev., was awarded on June 30, 2005, a $5,469,200 firm-fixed-price contract for M60E4 7.62mm Machine Guns. Work will be performed in Reno, Nev., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 20, 2005. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 6, 2005. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52H09-05-C-0229).

I thought the M240 series had replaced all the M60's?
 
I think they might be for Special Forces. maybe they are having problems with the Mk48(7.62mm NATO chambered M249) and they want to go back to the M60E4.

The M60 series are second generation GPMGs, designed to be fired from the shoulder as they are one-man weapons. Why wouldn't any one like them?
 
I am probably just a moron, but I thought the M240 (designation?) was more widely available in 5.56, whereas the M60 is 7.62 NATO? :scrutiny:
 
Eightball, the M240 series is 7.62 NATO same as the M60, the M249 is 5.56mm. This looks just like the M60E3 that is popular with the SEALs so it probably just has some enhancements.
 
Why do the SEALs choose the m60 over the 240? My understanding was that the 60 was a POS and the 240 is a MAG58, which is widely considered one of the best GPMG's available. :confused:
 
SEALs choose the M60 E4 over the M240 because the M60E4 is lighter . As tough as SEALs are, they still need to have light weapons so they can carry alot of ammo.

There's one thing I have never understood about SEALs. Why do they still use the 7.62 NATO GPMGs? You want more ammo? Arm ALL machine gunners with 5.56 Mk46 LMGs. You can carry double the amount of 5.56mm ammo at the same weight as half of the amount of 7.62 NATO ammo. MG's are used to supress the hell out of the enemy while rifle men get in deeper to finish them off. You need ALOT of ammo to service an MG so why are the SEALs still using 7.62??? Doesn't make sense! :confused:
 
First off the MK46 is a Squad Automatic Weapon, not a medium machine gun like the M240, M60, etc. They are two different weapons with two different missions.

There are a lot of things out there that are cover for 5.56x45, even M855 with it's steel penetrator, that are only concealment for 7.62x51.

Way back in the 80s the Army suggested going to all 5.56 weapons and the howls of protst from the Infantry community rang from Germany, Korea, Central America, all over the US and everywhere else American Infantrymen were deployed and they were heard loud and clear in Building 4 at Ft. Benning.

Jeff
 
Y'all all are overlooking the obvious: The MGs are probably being built for sale to a friendly (hopefully :rolleyes: ) country that has M-60s in their inventory, not M-240s.
 
There's a neat video of an M60E4 from Blackwater where they fired 850 rounds through it all in one string. It took almost two minutes to get through the huge belt they linked together.

Click. (A bit bigger than 11 megabytes.)
 
I remember Peter Kokalis (the gun writer, formerly of Soldier Of Fortune magazine) saying that the M60 was the biggest piece of trash ever foisted on the American soldier. He seemed to have a strong opinion about it :D
 
There was an article in Shotgun News a few months back on the M-60. The author basically enumerated a lot of problems with the gun- a majority involving the fact that poorly trained troops could easily put it together wrong.
 
I served as an AG on a -60 team for awhile in Germany, back in '90-91. I never had a problem with it. As for putting it together improperly, like the poster stated, that could only be caused by poor training. Any soldier worth a dang would train as much as possible on the weapon he was expected to carry into battle.

If push came to shove and someone told me I had to go into combat armed with an M-60, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Well, ok, I'd hesitate long enough to call in an artillery fire mission on the target beforehand. However, I wouldn't feel poorly armed.
 
mons meg-- Fired from the shoulder??? I think they tried that in Vietnam and abandoned the practice for obvious reasons....
Click to expand...


That is the only way the SEALS fire the gun... they take off the bipod and put on a foward hand grip. easily controlable from a standing or kneeling posistion.I think on the SEALS show the discovery channel did a few years ago there was an instructor blasting the way hollywood has portrayed the M60 being fired from the hip, and then goes on to demonstrate how effective it is fired from the shoulder like a standard rifle. quite cool to see that much lead going down range... :D
 
Some of the M60's had quality control-type issues, and the E3 especially overheated far too quickly for use in a "hot" environment.

Very difficult for troops in a tight situation to space the bursts as they needed to be, and there are times when nothing less than a full-on hosing could get the job done.

Until this one is tested in the field, I'll withhold any call on it, but the design has not exactly proven itself.

That bein said - I looooved mine, battered and beaten as it was, and Jeff makes a valid point about it punching big nasty holes in stuff that'll stop smaller rounds.

The original (heavy as a mofo) issue also had really impressive range of effectiveness if you knew what you were doing with it.

I hope they're using a different linkage system tho, belt jams were a constant annoyance.

-K
 
The E3/E4 version have the forward grip, making it easier to shoot w/o a bipod. It also comes witha shorter/lighter barrel, and it weighs 3 or 4 pounds less than an M240.
 
I think they might be for Special Forces. maybe they are having problems with the Mk48(7.62mm NATO chambered M249) and they want to go back to the M60E4.
Click to expand...

They are for US SOF, mainly the SEALs though the new Marine SOF unit may be using them as well. ARSOF has the MK-48 which is a lighter and improved version of the M240 series MG. The MK-48 is an awesome weapon with an average of 50,000rds between failures in the field.

The M240 is a great weapon. The newer M60s are just as reliable. The older ones we have (we still have a couple of racks full for training and supplementing our forces) had a lot of problems in A-stan. We deadlined 15% of them while in country.

The E4 version is not exactly new. It has been around and in service, with positive feed back, for several years. It is easy to fire from the shoulder with the 100rd battle pack (as is the MK-48), and that is the most common way it is fired. They dont carry the tripod in the field, they carry more ammo.
 
ARSOF has the MK-48 which is a lighter and improved version of the M240 series MG
Click to expand...

:)

No it's not part of the M240 series. The MK48 is actually an "upgunned" version of the 5.56mm MK46, which is also a version of the regular M249.

5.56mm MK46
fn_mg_mk46.gif



7.62mm MK48
SoldierTech_Mk48-1.jpg


Here's the M240, I see absolutely no resemblance at all. On top of that, the M240 (hehe, the REAL name is MAG 58 :neener: ) has a slightly different operating system than the M249 an it's entire family.
m240b.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Army ammunition contract
Replies
3
Views
561
rbernie
rbernie
S
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson government contract
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Rob62
R
S
  • Locked
M4 carbine question
Replies
2
Views
408
TODD3465
T
S
  • Locked
Military M16 contracts
Replies
1
Views
368
Kharn
K
W
  • Locked
US Army buys 17,000 rifles from China
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
5K
jdberger
J
Back
Top