M 60

#1
Gents the subject of the yank M60 machine gun was raised in a thread on the aviation channel.
I mentioned that it was the prefered gun for air to ground use when I was in Oman and several folk commented that it was not a good weapon in ground use.
Do we have anyone with practical expireance, on the board, who could make informd comment.
john
 
#2
Fired it twice; once with the spams, and once up at SENTA some years ago. Both guns I used were far from new, and rattled like they were made by a Frenchman. Multiple stoppages, both feed and gas. No buffering on the tripod, just a mount to fit on the same tripod that was used on the Browning M1919 .30 cal, so not that effective in the SF role either.

Compare that with some of our GPMGs, 40 years old and still going strong. And the USMC are now using FN MAG as their 7.62 belt fed sex machine. You know what the spams are like - if it ain't made by Uncle Sam they don't use it UNLESS it's the best there is.
 
#3
I agree, a load of crap and this should be pointed out to any Spam who raises the subject of the SA80. I fired it a couple of times and found it prone to stoppages and no more than averagely accurate. A serious drawback is the fact that the bipod legs are attached to the barrel which makes a quick barrel-change less than slick. Furthermore it lacks a decent carrying handle so you have to use a small asbestos glove (provided) to handle the hot barrell, a bit Heath Robinson I think!! As for stripping the thing, there appear to be about 300 fiddly little parts as opposed to the few large assembly's and working parts of the Jimpy, it must be a nightmare to clean after heavy use. all in all piece of tat and living proof that it's not only the UK who f**k up weapons procurement!!
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#5
Not practical use by myself, but an Aussie mate whose opinions I value highly has used and carried both the 60 and the MAG extensively.

He was full of praise for the 60 and hadn't a problem with it. This surprised me a bit as my knowldge of the gun was limited to anecdotal evidence from a few of Brits that had used them on the range and what I had read.
He was similarly fuffed to chuck with the MAG, noting of course advantage of the bipod on the gas block and the ability to adjust bleed.

I don't want to start another tran-Atlantic pissing contest, but perhaps it has more to do with the cleaning regimes in Commonwealth armies compared to those in other countries, (not particularly the US,) than the actual design of the wpn ?
 
#7
The spams like the M60 so much they replaced it with an FN MAG variant--the M240. It comes in various variants, (B,G,etc, I believe the Army use the B variant whereas the USMC use the G variant. Or vice versa.)

Just goes to show, the MAG (Gimpy to us, M240 to the spams) is one of the best 7.62 belt fed section support weapons ever made.
 
#8
Cutaway said:
Not practical use by myself, but an Aussie mate whose opinions I value highly has used and carried both the 60 and the MAG extensively.

He was full of praise for the 60 and hadn't a problem with it. This surprised me a bit as my knowldge of the gun was limited to anecdotal evidence from a few of Brits that had used them on the range and what I had read.
He was similarly fuffed to chuck with the MAG, noting of course advantage of the bipod on the gas block and the ability to adjust bleed.

I don't want to start another tran-Atlantic pissing contest, but perhaps it has more to do with the cleaning regimes in Commonwealth armies compared to those in other countries, (not particularly the US,) than the actual design of the wpn ?


Nope, IMHO it's the design of the weapon and the crappy build quality. It doesn't matter how much you clean a turd, it still stinks.

Spam bashing aside, most yank inf types that I've met over the years have been pretty hot on weapon care. I'm not saying this is always the case, but the same applies to us Brits too.

Edited to add Yank bum-sniffing comment.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#9
Blackcat said:
Weren't the working parts of the M60 direct copies or adaptions of the MG42's ?
The feed mech is copied from the MG 42, (as is that of the MAG which also uses the German trigger group,) the bolt and locking system from the FG 42, though without the semi-auto closed bolt facility.
 
#10
I recall shooting competitions against the US Army in the mid to late 1960s the M60 was not a patch on the GPMG for accuracy, the GIs envied us the gun while we initially disdained it as we missed our LMGs!
 
#11
I used the M-60 while in the Corps and liked it. Not a perfect weapon, some of the parts can go in backwards and still be assembled and I hated how fast the barrel heated up. From the guys I've talked to that have used the new M-240, it is a much better weapon.

Now if you want to talk about a GREAT machine gun, lets talk about the M-2. :D
 
#12
Jaeger said:
I fired it a couple of times and found it prone to stoppages and no more than averagely accurate.
A serious fault with the (National Guard Vietnam era) varient I fired was that the front sight assembly was made out of monkey metal (easily bent?) and the foresight post was fixed - thus the rear sight had to be adjusted on barrel change.
 
#15
OK, I'll bite.

The M60s and ancillaries came free with the Chinooks when bought. They work well in an aviation environment (as has been mentioned previously on this thread) where shit, grit and custard is less likely to affect them, and where accuracy is not too important. So the crabs kept them, probably because they looked good on Full Metal Jacket. Last time I saw one on a RAF Chinook, it looked well ropey mind...

If this is a Wah, I'll take it on the chin.

And then hunt you down like the dog you are.
 
#16
Themanwho said:
OK, I'll bite.

The M60s and ancillaries came free with the Chinooks when bought. They work well in an aviation environment (as has been mentioned previously on this thread) where s***, grit and custard is less likely to affect them, and where accuracy is not too important. So the crabs kept them, probably because they looked good on Full Metal Jacket. Last time I saw one on a RAF Chinook, it looked well ropey mind...

If this is a Wah, I'll take it on the chin.

And then hunt you down like the dog you are.
Honestly can say that I've never seen a chinook with an M60 on it.... and I'm a sad spotter!! That's why I thought it was a wah!
 
#17
It wasn't a wah.

I assumed that it came from the initial purchase. It just strikes me as odd that we'd use a seperate weapon system (requiring a larger supply chain) when a GPMG would be better and cheaper?

Didn't know whether there was an official reason?
 
#20
jonwilly said:
I understand that a private US company now does a Upgrade kit for the M60 that rectifies the know problems.
john
Like spot welding a carry handle on the barrel, building a frame to attach the bipod and then sorting out the reliability/accuracy? Is it really worth it? I mean you can tinker all you like, but if you end up with a weapon that can still have parts put in it upside-down in the dark.... and fit! You have an inherently bad weapon.

They should do what we should have done years ago with the SA80. Not bother to save face and taken a well established, tried and tested weapon off the shelf and use that.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts