I've worked with both.   M240G ALL DAY LONG.  You may save a couple pounds with an M60 (especially the E variants), but you're gonna be mighty pissed when you finally get where you're going and it doesn't work.   The 240 runs and runs well, and I had zero issues with it, whereas the M60D and M60E4 (the 2 variants I've personally used) were always a shitshow by comparison.  Even if you just see both side by side in an armory the M240 immediately and visibly outclasses the M60 in build quality and engineering.  On a technical note I do prefer the G variant because you have a choice in gas settings which can make it more reliable with higher pressures if needed for the environment;  in theory this will shorten the life of the gun but honestly this thing is a beast and I kept mine at 850-950rpm pretty much all the time.  You do need to be judicious in your bursts though since you will buuuuuurn through ammo right quick with the gas plug on setting 3.  I have also humped that beast 18-30 miles twice a month on average for a couple years (BC was a bit of a sadist), and it's noticeably heavier, but completely doable.

Agreed. I would say it is the best small arm in our inventory overall. Glad I never carried the damn thing though.

For the last decade the M240s standard diet has been upgraded to a  130gr at 3050 fps.

It's a turd, it's an M249 chambered in 7.62 and beats itself apart.

Ironic that now over 50 years later, the US is rechambering them to 6.5 and 6.8.    you had the right answer 100 years ago.

Ezell's (1985?) "Small Arms of the World" showed the side by side comparisons to the other GPMGs out there and it literally blew all of them away. By a good margin.

I don't agree with the direction of the Sig Spear and 6.8 x 51mm cartridge as a new service rifle but the NGSW shows a lot of promise as a crew served belt fed light machine gun.  Lighter than the SAW and with > 7.62mm performance.



With 25 year old Sig engineer Jackie McNally




For crew serve work I was really hoping this bad boy would be procured.  Total weight of 50lbs including tripod, lightweight with 25mm air bursting round.

It had rather grandiose claims of replacing many weapon systems while adding a huge level per round price, multiple levels of complexity, and small payload. Sometimes a bullet hose is the solution.

Marine 0331 from the 90s here. I carried the M-60E3 for two years. I loved my 60, it ran like a champ. But, half of our guns did not run reliably enough to count on. It is a good thing they were not called upon in our deployment to Somalia.

 A big concern of mine was too much weight had been shaved off the barrel of the original M-60 for the M-60E3 to be used for what the Marine Corps was expecting to use it for.

 Just before getting out of the service my unit got the 240G. It was much better suited for what the Marine Corps wanted at the time. I felt the added weight was worth the better weapon system. The mounting of the 240 to the tri-pod was a huge difference and clearly increased the maximum effective range.

I was part of one of those commands, albeit one of the JV ones.

Was hoping it meant an engineer at a weapons designer to get some insight into the process of designing, trials, and selling a design.

ETA: and to the original point, loved my 240B. Glad I never had to carry it all that far, but it always went bang from the top of the truck.

the M60 shouldnt be counted out, its pretty easy to rebuild the whole back half of the gun and be up and running again.

Biggest user in the world disagrees with that, hence replacement.

CD

Insert Morgan Freeman "He's right, you know" meme here.

M60E4, new, fixed a lot of the Pig's problems, but with a lighter barrel.  Joes notoriously shoot out barrels, usually from poor barrel change practice.

Former assistant M60 gunner experience.

OK, My M240 story...
So I'm at Master Gunner School , and were about to test out on the crew served MGs. The M240 test you need to
Unload
Clear
Disassemble
reassemble
load
function check.

Now like most schools, you have a strict process you follow, deviate from it, you're a No-Go.
 Part of there procedure is to take the reamers that come with the MG and ream out each of the gas port holes on the gas regulator.
So I get done with everything and I look at the instructor and say "Done.

He looks at me and says "Are you sure?". I reply "Yes"

he replies with" Are you Absolutely sure?" and again I reply "Yes"

So he proceeds to remove the barrel, remove the gas regulator, take the reamers and insert into one of the gas ports and a tiny piece of pencil lead drops out and onto the table......WTF

So the lesson. Attention to fucking Detail.

I retested after lunch and got a go.... Fuckers

We use to joke about if we got hit and had to bail out of the Tank, that we would be grabbing a 240 and a few boxes of ammo and taking it with us...
Years later that became SOP in one of the Manuals explaining the crew is to dismount one, along with the heat mitt and two ammo cans.

The Army did experiment with a dismount kit for the M240's that added a pistol grip assembly like the ground version along with a clip on Bipod. It would have been nice to have that along with the Shoulder stock assembly. There were no sights, but hey, that's what tracers are for. The COAX version weighed 22.2 lbs.

My buddy opines:

Most mechanized units ended up using their 240C's with a hodgepodge of parts to run on Humvees in Iraq.

Attached File

Historical trivia:

Army adopted M240 as the M1 tank's co-ax gun.

Because it was now an Army Standard-A weapon, Ranger battalions asked if they could order dismount kits using SOCOM money.

Shazam.  M240G ("G" for ground-use) adopted for Ranger battalions.

Years later (post Desert Storm), Leg Army follows.

I believe that is how the Marine Corps got M240's, when they got a bunch of Army MBT's and associated MG's.

Reference to the coax replacement by Ezell. Nine weapons were tested. The M-60E2 and FN MAG were the top two. Ironically the M60E2 seemed to have been the preferred one. Probably still using the NIH bias. The nine tested in order of performance were
1. M60E2
2. MAG 58
3. M219
4. PKM
5. L8A1 (British MAG 58)
6. MG3
7. AAT52
8. M219 (Don't know why this was listed twice perhaps they meant M73)
9. C1 (Canadian?)

They took the top two and the results were as follows on retesting (50,000 Rounds fired per MG)
M60E2               MRBS-846         MRBF-1699
MAG58              MRBS-2962       MRBF-6442
Min specified      MRBS-850         MRBF-2675
Min desired        MRBS-1750       MRBF-5500

M-240 was standardized in January 1977