Which Machine Gun was Better?

[Blain]

The rifleman is always more important than the machine gunner. In WWII they pited them up against each other, and the rifleman won more often than not. Never underestimate good riflemen.


Now, since you mentioned M16s and AKs I assume you were refering to CARBINES! Well.....that's a different story.

 

[erikm]

Hello,
Since we're discussing GPMGs here, I'll toss in a related question. How do similar guns from other nations stack up? I'm thinking about the PK(T), the Chatellerault (sp?) and its replacement(s) and the like.


Cheers,
ErikM

 

[Jeff White]

Blain said;

The rifleman is always more important than the machine gunner. In WWII they pited them up against each other, and the rifleman won more often than not. Never underestimate good riflemen.

Blain, I have to disagree. Since the late 1930s the machine gun has provided the base of fire that supported the maneuver of the riflemen. The machine gun provides the volume of fire that keeps the enemy's heads down so that the riflemen can maneuver on the enemy and engage from the flank.

You always keep your machine guns manned. If a member of a gun crew becomes a casualty, you take a rifleman out of a squad and make him a machine gunner.

Jeff

 

[Sean Smith]

Just based on my limited experience with them towards the end of their service life, the M60 sucked.

 

[T.Stahl]

You can change the barrel on an M60 in about 30 seconds.

Thirty seconds?
That's enough to change the barrel, change the bolt and insert a new ammo belt on an MG3, btw, the deadliest weapon ever put on a bipod (well, maybe second to her mother, the MG42 ).

 

[Sean Smith]

It is kind of depressing that a U.S. company would rip off the best ideas they could find left and right, and wind up with a mediocrity like the M60. At least the Browning 1919 had sheer age in defense of its various shortcomings as a predecessor to the M60.

Everything I've heard from my friends in the Army is that the M240G is the bee's knees, even if it is heavy as hell.

The 1919A6 was a sort of half-assed attempt to fit an already old weapon into a role it didn't really fit into. The M60 was designed from the ground up for a role, and did a mediocre job of it. Head-to-head, I'd rather have an M60, but it is the more contemptable weapon in the abstract.

 

[Trebor]

Van Humphrey,

Later on, during my first tour in Viet Nam, I was an adviser with an ARVN infantry battalion, which used those same weapons -- so I can say I have used them all in combat (in fact, I wrapped my issue M2 carbine around a tree and carried an M1 rifle that I bummed from the ARVN after that.)

Care to share the experiences that led you to lose faith in the M2 Carbine?

How well did the Garand work for you in Vietnam?

Rob

 

[fourdeuce82d]

"One question I've always asked about the M249 is, "Did you ever have a problem shooting up all the ammo you could carry in combat?"

If the answer is, "No," then what's the point of having a heavier weapon that shoots up ammo faster? Especially if it shoots the same cartridge as the M16?"

I'll defer to people who actually served as machine gunners, but I think the issue is not how fast you shoot up your ammo, but how accurately you can place the rounds while doing so.

IIRC, the machine gun in not intended to be a one shot, precision kill weapon- it's inded to take an area under fire, and allow riflemen to maneuver against the enemy.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Should I say FN-MAG?

 

[G1FAL]

I went in after the M60 had been relegated to reserve and NG duty, so never got to play with one. I did have buddies who were machinegunners who had been in long enough to use them, though. And they much preferred the M240G, and the LAV variant, the M240E.

If I could own only ONE machinegun, ever, but could have any one I wanted, it would be the M240G. That thing was just awesome. The only thing I'd like to see is a better handguard. All the handguards I saw didnt look like they would be very effective. I know its supposed to be fired from a bipod or tripod, but you never know, you just might need to put your hand on that part of the gun for some reason.

The M249 SAW is a pretty good weapon too. I agree that the M16 magwell needs to go. I dont think I ever saw one fire more than 2 or 3 shots using an M16 mag before it jammed, or failed to feed, or something.

 

[Bart Noir]

Jeff White wrote: You can change the barrel on an M60 in about 30 seconds. Lock the bolt to the rear, push in and then flip up the locking lever, remove the hot barrel, slide the spare barrel in and flip the lever down and continue firing.

That might be so if the M-60 is on a pintle mount or a tripod, but I refer you all to the photo of it on the bipod. Which is attached to the barrel, which you are removing. So the MG falls in the mud 'cause the assistant gunner (gotta have two men to change the barrel?) gets a bit of grenade fragment in his posterior as he is valiently trying to hold the MG up while the gunner is changing the barrel. And having a bipod on every barrel increases the weight of every spare barrel. Oh, the flip-up handle on the MG is not attached to the barrel, so how do you grab it? Don't they issue "oven mitts" just for barrel changes? Not the best design......

Question for you experianced gunners: do the hot barrels, once removed, get used again after they cool down?

Bart Noir

 

[Nightcrawler]

Question for you experianced gunners: do the hot barrels, once removed, get used again after they cool down?

You know, it's never come up. I've never gone through that many live rounds, being a Guardsman.

However, each SAW only comes with two barrels, so I'm guessing that yeah, you let one cool while the other is being used.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, barrels are re-used. The idea is to change barrels before the one you're using gets hot enough to damage it. And yes, they issue a mitt to protect your hand.

I have seen Browning M2 HBs with the barrels drooping like spaghetti, and even with gashes in the side, where the hot barrel curved down and the bullet went straight.

 

[Nightcrawler]

And yes, they issue a mitt to protect your hand.

Not with the SAW. Don't have to; you've got to give the FN engineers credit. See, the carry handle is part of the barrel. So, when you want to swap barrels, you grab the carry handle and hit the release lever. Boom! Barrel out, no burns, no need for a chicken mitt.

Good idea, IMHO.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"Care to share the experiences that led you to lose faith in the M2 Carbine?

How well did the Garand work for you in Vietnam?"

Someone detonated a claymore on the head of my column, killing or wounding everyone ahead of me. Then someone jumped up, ran across the trail and disappeared -- we were all shooting carbines and you could see the dust fly from hits.

When he disappeared, I ducked, and there was another boom. Son of a gun if he hadn't jumped up again, and again you could see dust fly from hits. At this point, my carbine had decided to go on strike, and I drew my Colt M357 (you could get away with carrying private weapons in those days.)

The .357 did the job. From then on, I carried an M1 -- and it worked great. One wonderful thinb about it was, it will penetrate. You can shoot through brush with it -- not straight, but you don't need to shoot straight as you do in hunting, you just need to keep rounds going into the same area.

Let me address another issue:

"I'll defer to people who actually served as machine gunners, but I think the issue is not how fast you shoot up your ammo, but how accurately you can place the rounds while doing so."

IF you are accurately placing rounds in a target area, then you are being effective. Since you can do that as well with an M16A2 as with a SAW, why do you need full auto fire, especially from a heavier weapon?

Now, I fully admit that as a company commander (on my second tour), I used to fine troops $50 for firing the M16 full auto.

I used to take my NCOs into the brush and put out C-ration boxes as targets, siting them as if they were putting men in position. Then we'd go back to the "friendly position" and put up limiting poles.

Lying flat on the ground in in firing position, we'd adjust two tapes -- one near the ground, the other higher. These tapes mark the upper and lower limits -- no enemy can possibly be below the lower one, nor above the higher one.

(Just for an experiment, try that with an iron-sighted rifle -- typically, if you mark the place on the ground where no enemy can be, then the upper limit, they're separated by about three front-sight heights.)

We then brought up the troops -- who had not seen the targets placed -- and coached them. The idea is to fire methodically into the "box." If a squad-sized unit is used, split the box in half vertically -- one team taking the right side, the other taking the left. Leave overlap and stress that to the troops.

Ensure that the troops shoot LOW -- you want to see bullets hit short now and then -- ricochets can be effective, but rounds going over the enemy's head are not.

This can be enhanced by putting claymore blasting caps on some of the targets -- when the cap goes off, the troops have a clue where the target is and concentrate fire on it.

Well-controlled semi-automatic fire like this, from well-trained troops is DEADLY. And you can sustain it a lot longer than you can spray-and-pray.

 

[Trebor]

Vern Humphrey,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I'm glad you made it home.

Interesting thoughts on semi-auto rifle training. Definately a "non-standard" training method, but sounds like it works. I especially like the hidden blasting cap to supply positive reinforcement.

Take care,

Rob

 

[Jeff White]

Bart Noir,
The machine gun is a crew served weapon. So if the crew needs to change barrels from the bipod position, the gunner moves his grip to the fore arm and the assistant gunner changes the barrel. Although if it was one of my gun crews, they darn well had better be shooting from the tripod and T&E by the time they need to change barrels.

Vern, You are correct about hand held automatic fire. Only about 3 circumstances I ever let my soldiers fire on automatic. When gaining fire superiority upon making contact, a break contact drill, and the initial few seconds of an ambush. You do have machine guns and SAWs for automatic fire, that is properly their role.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You can also use tracers for fire control -- squad and platoon leaders have solid tracer, everyone else has ball.

Mark sector by firing pairs, left, right, center (always in that order so people who don't see some of the pairs can still know or estimate the sector limits.)

Steady firing tracers at a point -- "Concentrate fire on this target"

Automatic firing tracers (an exception to the rule) -- "Automatic weapons concentrate on this target."

Left, right, center -- "return to coverage of sector."