www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYXsKPdGf4E

It may not have the same rate of fire as an M240, but it is a perfectly balanced weapon with a slow enough rate of fire that lends itself to keeping accurate fire on target, even when brought up to the shoulder and fired like a rifle.

You often saw experienced M60 gunners employing it like guys use the SAW these days. Of course the M60 fired the 7.62 NATO round that the M240 uses which gives it conserable more punch than the 5.56mm SAW. But you rarely see an M240 employed in some of the ways you saw guys use the 60. Its usually always fired from the prone off the bipod. You just don't see guys standing up with it, blazing away from the shoulder like it was a rifle. While you would typically wanna be down in the prone with a machine gun, I can see cases where having the ability to fire on the move from the standing position would be desirable. The M60 seems to be a better suited machine gun for use on the move while the 240 seems better suited to static use or use on vehicles and helicopters.

Of course everything related to guns is all a matter of opinion based on the individual user. We all have differing opinions based on our own perceptions. But I think I'd rather have an M60 over the 240 or 249 if given the choice. I can see why so many US Special Ops units continued to carry and use the ole' 60 long after regular infantry units transitioned to the 240 and 249.

Don't forget the porn.

Quoted: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYXsKPdGf4E It may not have the same rate of fire as an M240, but it is a perfectly balanced weapon with a slow enough rate of fire that lends itself to keeping accurate fire on target, even when brought up to the shoulder and fired like a rifle. You often saw experienced M60 gunners employing it like guys use the SAW these days. Of course the M60 fired the 7.62 NATO round that the M240 uses which gives it conserable more punch than the 5.56mm SAW. But you rarely see an M240 employed in some of the ways you saw guys use the 60. Its usually always fired from the prone off the bipod. You just don't see guys standing up with it, blazing away from the shoulder like it was a rifle. While you would typically wanna be down in the prone with a machine gun, I can see cases where having the ability to fire on the move from the standing position would be desirable. The M60 seems to be a better suited machine gun for use on the move while the 240 seems better suited to static use or use on vehicles and helicopters. Of course everything related to guns is all a matter of opinion based on the individual user. We all have differing opinions based on our own perceptions. But I think I'd rather have an M60 over the 240 or 249 if given the choice. I can see why so many US Special Ops units continued to carry and use the ole' 60 long after regular infantry units transitioned to the 240 and 249.

I understand, but I remember the stories from relatives in Vietnam where the ambush that was supposed to start with a barrage of M60 fire started with a click, clack, or clunk instead.

We stumbled across a M60 barrel this past week while cleaning out a connex, along with a giant wooden hammer...

I hate that MG, it is among the worse ever fielded by the USA actually.  The bolt wears itself away in as little as 10,000 rounds.  Peter K. Kokalis did a very thorough review of it in the late 80's, he didn't mince words describing its very apparent shortcomings.

To think if the Ordnance Dept hadn't of fucked up in WWII, we would have had a .30 cal MG-42, a weapon light years better.

The way we train with the M240 now is to lay down high volume supressive fire without all the Rambo bullshit.  If you look closely at the 240 you'll notice the design is totally different.  The way the gun is laid out, it behooves to go prone, fire off a tripod, or from a vehicle mount.  I'm not saying the way you can handle an M-60 is all that bad but the doctrine has changed.

Quoted: I hate that MG, it is among the worse ever fielded by the USA actually.  The bolt wears itself away in as little as 10,000 rounds.  Peter K. Kokalis did a very thorough review of it in the late 80's, he didn't mince words describing its very apparent shortcomings. To think if the Ordnance Dept hadn't of fucked up in WWII, we would have had a .30 cal MG-42, a weapon light years better.

I read the Kokalis review, which I thought was pretty good.  I didn't know all of the problems of the M60 until I read the article.

Quoted: I hate that MG, it is among the worse ever fielded by the USA actually. The bolt wears itself away in as little as 10,000 rounds. Peter K. Kokalis did a very thorough review of it in the late 80's, he didn't mince words describing its very apparent shortcomings. To think if the Ordnance Dept hadn't of fucked up in WWII, we would have had a .30 cal MG-42, a weapon light years better.

That isn't as much of an issue if you can steal bolts from Air Cav.  I'm just sayin' ...

Why were the sights so high above the barrel?

Quoted: Quoted: I hate that MG, it is among the worse ever fielded by the USA actually. The bolt wears itself away in as little as 10,000 rounds. Peter K. Kokalis did a very thorough review of it in the late 80's, he didn't mince words describing its very apparent shortcomings. To think if the Ordnance Dept hadn't of fucked up in WWII, we would have had a .30 cal MG-42, a weapon light years better. That isn't as much of an issue if you can steal bolts from Air Cav.  I'm just sayin' ...

The art of acquisition.

I liked the 60.  Nice accurate weapon, especially from the bipod.  Easy to maintain, easy to shoot, easy to qualify.  Just remember to have the bolt forward when you disassemble it.

Quoted: Quoted: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYXsKPdGf4E It may not have the same rate of fire as an M240, but it is a perfectly balanced weapon with a slow enough rate of fire that lends itself to keeping accurate fire on target, even when brought up to the shoulder and fired like a rifle. You often saw experienced M60 gunners employing it like guys use the SAW these days. Of course the M60 fired the 7.62 NATO round that the M240 uses which gives it conserable more punch than the 5.56mm SAW. But you rarely see an M240 employed in some of the ways you saw guys use the 60. Its usually always fired from the prone off the bipod. You just don't see guys standing up with it, blazing away from the shoulder like it was a rifle. While you would typically wanna be down in the prone with a machine gun, I can see cases where having the ability to fire on the move from the standing position would be desirable. The M60 seems to be a better suited machine gun for use on the move while the 240 seems better suited to static use or use on vehicles and helicopters. Of course everything related to guns is all a matter of opinion based on the individual user. We all have differing opinions based on our own perceptions. But I think I'd rather have an M60 over the 240 or 249 if given the choice. I can see why so many US Special Ops units continued to carry and use the ole' 60 long after regular infantry units transitioned to the 240 and 249. I understand, but I remember the stories from relatives in Vietnam where the ambush that was supposed to start with a barrage of M60 fire started with a click, clack, or clunk instead.

I wasn't in Vietnam obviously, so I can't offer any personal insight. But it seemed the weapon's reliability was usually a direct result of operator care. I had an uncle who served over there in the "Brown Water Navy" in 1967-68. He absolutely LOVED the M60. He said the guys on the boat would have had a mutiny on their hands if they had tried to pull him off that gun. LOL. I have also read many similar opinions from books of the period. Johnny Clark, who wrote Guns Up, talks about the strange sort of love the gunners had for their M60s. They never wanted to part from their gun for a single moment. Some even refused apparently, even after being ordered to do so for sweeps or some other task. They didn't want the gun in anyone's care but their own. They treated it the way you'd expect a love struck kid to treat a beautiful homecoming queen or something.

Also, reading the book titled The Hill Fights, the Marines were having horrible problems with their newly issued M-16 rifles (this was 1966 and 1967). In some firefights, some units experienced what amounted to half their rifles jamming. Many guys were found dead after the fighting with cleaning rods stuck down the barrels in an attempt to clear the stuck cartridge cases. But they all seemingly praised the M60 for its reliability and for keeping up a steady rate of fire when the then very finicky M-16 often failed them.

Based on the impressions I have taken from these and many other books I've read from that time period, the M60 seemed to create a very favorable impression among the GI's, while the M-16 was hated with a passion, at least prior to the bugs being worked out of the thing later into the conflict. And it seems the guys who really, really loved their gun as if it was a prized possession kept it in top working order constantly with lots of TLC. So this may have played a big role as well. I also never heard any issues with the bolts needing replacing after only 10,000 rounds, though I have read of lots of instances where guys needing a new barrel after a firefight. Johnny Clark wrote of firing his weapon is such long bursts while ambushing an enemy company moving across a moon lit rice paddy one night that the barrel started to glow red, then became almost transparent from the heat, allowing him to see the piston working. Finally the barrel basically melted and ceased to fire. So the next day, one of his buddies simply swiped the barrel from a helicopter's M60 door gun while the gunner was distracted. They did the barrel swap and continued the mission. Cool story.

Now, as to the later years of the M60's service life, when I am sure many examples were getting some very high mileage on them, wear and tear may have become a serious issue. But I have heard very few complaints from guys who used them in combat. In fact, most of the guys loved them to the point their commanders would have to fight them just to get the gun away from them.

1 of 5 in my collection, all NFA of course  And for the record, I LOVE the M60.  I have won more competitions with my E4 than anyone has with another belt gun competing with me.  All of mine run like swiss watches; just perfect.  When other belts don't run mine always does.  

The M-60E4 solves most all of the early deficiencies. Its a beautiful gun. If you need a 7.62 gun for a rapid deployment force the E4 is it. The 240 is FUCKING HUGE. I have a MAG 58 parts kit and when I laid it out I was like " You've got to freaking kidding me..."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CRXH-muly0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD2hV8uCkQM

Watch the 2nd vid. As the belt gets close to the end you can easily hear the gun slow doen due to heat. The whole gun must have been hot as hell.

I love the reliability of the 240 but after deploying with one I can tell you the E4 would be a hell of a lot easier to lug around.

I read about all the problems with the M60 but I never saw it with any ones I used or carried. During AIT I didn’t have one FTF, FTE, jam, or any other problem.

The "Pig" (M60) was without a doubt one of the WORST machineguns the US has EVER adopted... right behind the M85 and M73...

Giovanni Lentini
former 45B (Small Arms Repairer) US ARMY

I carried one in the 80's, I didn't like it much.

As a right handed shooter, my body would rub the point where the belt feeds into the gun, so I was always breakinmg links off.  I usually only had about 10 rounds on the belt, and had to always be ready to clip more on the belt in a hurry.

My A gunner hated it too.

I was a 60 gunner and I loved it. Our weapons teams guns always ran very well, i'm positive proper maintence had a lot to do with it. Our unit was one that got to experiment with the m240's when they were getting introduced. We still liked the 60's better.

Unfortunately, many who were confronted face-to-face with the shortcomings (or downright criminal problems) with the M-60 never lived to complain about it.

The M-60 used by the SEALS was not the same GPMG that was used by everyone else.

Find and read Kokalis' article. It's an eye-opener.

Ordering and fielding the FN-MAG was one of the smartest moves the US Army ever made. Drop that M-60 like the turd it is and let if float down toilet bowl of history into the cesspool where it belongs.

Quoted: Quoted: I hate that MG, it is among the worse ever fielded by the USA actually.  The bolt wears itself away in as little as 10,000 rounds.  Peter K. Kokalis did a very thorough review of it in the late 80's, he didn't mince words describing its very apparent shortcomings. To think if the Ordnance Dept hadn't of fucked up in WWII, we would have had a .30 cal MG-42, a weapon light years better. I read the Kokalis review, which I thought was pretty good.  I didn't know all of the problems of the M60 until I read the article.

How do you guys feel about the MK48?

i had an M60 when i fist got to iraq.  my platoon was kicked around to several different companies and we drew our weapons from HHC, who gave us a single m60.  it was pretty cool walking in the chow hall with that thing.

id still take a 240 anyday though, which is what i got about a month later.

With all this talk about a Peter Kokalis article about the M60...

Where can one read this notable article? or other work of his?

Quoted: Where can one read this notable article? or other work of his?

www.amazon.com/Weapons-Tests-Evaluations-Soldier-Fortune/dp/1581601220

I tried to find the M60 article online, but no luck.
But I didn't really try hard since I have that book.

Here's one on the FN MAG.

I have a special place for the M60, since it's the only "real" MG I've gotten to fire.
It was during ROTC training and I was the last cadet to shoot, so they let me fire off a whole 100rds (as opposed to 50).

'Course, since I was the last one to shoot, I had to clean the damn thing too....

I hated carrying "The Pig."  We had a basic load of 1100 rounds, 100 in a bandoleer on the M-60 in half-load and the other thousand in 3 small cans or sometimes 1 large can, plus the spare barrel.

Sometimes your AG (assistant gunner) was busy and you had to carry the M-60 slung over you shoulder, all 3 ammo cans and the spare barrel bag in your hands; about the time that the maximum number of witnesses possible happened to be around the buttstock would come off and the M-60 would swing down and hit you in the back of the legs.  

Quoted: How do you guys feel about the MK48?

I've never shoot the thing.  I did just train on it at the Joint Armors course in Crane though.  I'm sure the SEALS like it a lot more than they did the M60E(fill in the blank).

I had a the roller that ran the feed tray snap off the bolt during a fire fight in 68, never trusted it after that. I also thought it was strange that some of the parts were safety wired to the gun

 I was an M60 AG for awhile in Germany.  Never carried one in WAR. Ours always ran and was reliable at the RANGE.   Thats all I can say. I did like it though.  WarDawg

Quoted: I hate that MG, it is among the worse ever fielded by the USA actually.  The bolt wears itself away in as little as 10,000 rounds.  Peter K. Kokalis did a very thorough review of it in the late 80's, he didn't mince words describing its very apparent shortcomings. To think if the Ordnance Dept hadn't of fucked up in WWII, we would have had a .30 cal MG-42, a weapon light years better.

I heard that it was prone to breaking its' firing pins.  In its' earliest form, it was basically a FG42 with the belt feed mechanism of the MG42 grafted on.  We really should've taken the time to make a proper clone of the MG42.  

Even if we couldn't get it right during the war, there's no reason why we couldn't have after the war.  Hell, after the war, we'd have had access to the actual tooling used to produce the MG42...

Quoted: Why were the sights so high above the barrel?

Because the weapon uses a straight-line stock.  The AR15's sights are high for the same reason.  Also, a GPMG is intended to be capable of delivering automatic fire at extended ranges.  Can't very well do this without the capacity for significant elevation adjustments.  The role of the GPMG is slightly different than that of a SAW.  

Quoted: I snagged a bunch of butter from the chow hall and used it as lube. Not only did the M-60 run flawlessly, it smelled great doing it!

Haha, too damn funny.  Imagine how hungry and pissed off everyone would have been if you'd have rubbed it down with Bacon!  

A funny M-60 story for you guys, I worked in the armory on swings and the day guys told me about this.  A USAF Security Police Flight 2Lt decided that he needed to do an inspection of our armory during the day shift.  The 2Lt put the M-60 on fire, pulled the cocking handle to the rear, put it on safe and opened up the feed tray cover.  Next the 2Lt started complaining about the weapon being dirty and removed the buttstock.  The 2Lt started to pull the buffer yoke and my friend tried to stop him but the dumb 2Lt told him that he knew what he was doing. Hehe, that 2Lt caught the buffer assembly right in the middle of his forehead.  

The M60 was flawed from the very first day it was designed.  You don't want a weapon whose parts can be assembed backwards and still fit perfectly.  The sear, gas piston, and other parts can be installed BACKWARDS and you won't know til you fire the first round.  And the spare barrel dosn't have a handle forcing you to use a mitten or shake it out on the ground.

I've used the M60 for years and even when rebuilt from the factory they still sucked.  The spare barrel was always screwed, the gas piston frozen in place.

During my recent tour in Iraq, much to my surprise I saw a soldier humping an M60 to chow, he was from an engineer unit.  The M240 is a lot heavier and longer but it also goes bang damn near every time you pull the trigger.

Quoted: 1 of 5 in my collection, all NFA of course  And for the record, I LOVE the M60.  I have won more competitions with my E4 than anyone has with another belt gun competing with me.  All of mine run like swiss watches; just perfect.  When other belts don't run mine always does.  i31.tinypic.com/2hfthe8.jpg

You suck!

Quoted: The "Pig" (M60) was without a doubt one of the WORST machineguns the US has EVER adopted... right behind the M85 and M73... Giovanni Lentini former 45B (Small Arms Repairer) US ARMY

Don't forget the '219

I started out with ALL of them in the early 80's on the M60A1.

I DO like the M-60 GPMG though but it ISN'T a '240.  One of the things I remember about it was when guys managed to put the gas piston in backwards (You could do it) and turned it into a 26lb single shot

I like some things about the M60, like it's size, and the slight weight benefit.  I hate disassembly and reassembly, and barrel changes.

<-------------However, the M240B will always be my baby.  Even though it's larger, heaver, and a PITA to shoot from the shoulder, I'll take it any day over a -60

It's idiot proof to maintain (no backwards parts) it keeps running through anything, barrel changes are a snap, they are incredibly accurate, and has a much better bipod IMHO.  I like being able to put a belt on the feed tray with the bolt forward.

I am still haunted by my Drill Sargeant in basic training and his M60 trick question.

DS: "How many left-handed M60 gunners do we have in my platoon?"

Me: "Here, DS!"  As I raised my left hand.

DS:  "Wrong F**king answer private!  Now knock em out until you can give me the correct answer!"

I did a sh*tload of pushups because no one had told us that the M60 was to be fired from the right hand position.

Bastage!!

I ended up carrying one at my first two units and when I would qualify with it, it was left handed.  One because it was more comfortable for me and two it because I wanted to flip off my old DS wherever he was at.

Never used in combat, but put massive amounts of lead downrange
in the Army. Only loved Ma Deuce more. The 60 was awesome. Never
a FTF/FTE in all the times I used it.

The M2 .50 caliber can also be put back together to fire single shot,
but we still use the thing.

Ah, the M60.....I remember that piece of crap.

Of course, I was in the Cav Scouts in the late 80's, early 90's, our M60's were Vietnam era, all worn shiny, etc. I guess if you had a new one, it might work.

We had one inside our Bradley, they strap to a wall near the turret. When we tried to fire that POS, it was a good time if we could get through 20 rds. before it jammed. The bradley coax we had was the 240C and everyone always said "we should have these as the Army's GPMG. Well, finally, they did.

I was in Iraq 04-06, the 240 has no such problems. That machine gun kicks ass.

I carried and jumped an M-60 for most of my years of service.

I love the damn thing.. I have personally put hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange out of several of the guns ... mott lake was a weekly blowout.

The M2HB.. MA duece was another friend, I remember one day.. a long one, 5 M2HB's and two duece and a halfs FILLED with crates of .50. we had to dispose of it all.. by dark there were 2 guns with serviceable barrels still running.

The failures That I had were because the belt was not supported properly and the angle that it hit the feed tray on would cause links to seperate. Once I "wired" the feed tray up and had a support hand for the belt, or even canted the gun to the left when firing from a vehicle, I had no more issues.

Personally I love the gun. regardless of what PGK might have to say. He was not covering MY ass.

ETA: I can add that I know one will not survive a drop from 1250 feet AGL. Had the clip on a weapon case fail.. broke at the D ring on canopy opening..... when I found it, it was a rattling bag -0- parts .. the case held together but the gun was fucked.

Mine Too!

I have a question about the M60, are there ammo holder boxes that attach to the hanger similar to the M249 ammo boxes? or is it just loose belts?

I would think that a detachable ammo box would be simpler.

Most all of the issues people are complaining about here have been corrected by the E3 model and the E4 is even better.

The M240 should be reliable, it's built with 1930's technology. Riveted steel plates?!?!? Not a design fault but damn...makes it heavy and huge. The M240 is the best tripod GPMG but the 60E4 is the gun you wanna hump on a foot march.

Quoted: I have a question about the M60, are there ammo holder boxes that attach to the hanger similar to the M249 ammo boxes? or is it just loose belts? I would think that a detachable ammo box would be simpler.

there are adapters that hold the cloth bandoleers the belts come in.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a question about the M60, are there ammo holder boxes that attach to the hanger similar to the M249 ammo boxes? or is it just loose belts? I would think that a detachable ammo box would be simpler. there are adapters that hold the cloth bandoleers the belts come in.

Yeah its a "box" made of cloth that has cardboard box insert that holds the ammo... the belt kinda piles up in it. it can be strapped to the feed tray.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a question about the M60, are there ammo holder boxes that attach to the hanger similar to the M249 ammo boxes? or is it just loose belts? I would think that a detachable ammo box would be simpler. there are adapters that hold the cloth bandoleers the belts come in. Yeah its a "box" made of cloth that has cardboard box insert that holds the ammo... the belt kinda piles up in it. it can be strapped to the feed tray.

That makes sense. Thanks for the replies.

Quoted: The M-60E4 solves most all of the early deficiencies. Its a beautiful gun. If you need a 7.62 gun for a rapid deployment force the E4 is it. The 240 is FUCKING HUGE. I have a MAG 58 parts kit and when I laid it out I was like " You've got to freaking kidding me..." www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CRXH-muly0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD2hV8uCkQM Watch the 2nd vid. As the belt gets close to the end you can easily hear the gun slow doen due to heat. The whole gun must have been hot as hell.

Wow! That 1600 round torture test kicked all sorts of ass! And all from a compact little package that is the M60E4. If I were a foot soldier that actually had to hump around a 7.62mm machine gun, that would be the gun I'd want. What a sweet weapon.

Everyone's complaining about how heavy the 240 is but I don't think it's that heavy.
How much lighter is the 60?

It's my favorite weapon in COD4. I've got the most kills with this weapon than any other weapon.

Quoted: Quoted: The M-60E4 solves most all of the early deficiencies. Its a beautiful gun. If you need a 7.62 gun for a rapid deployment force the E4 is it. The 240 is FUCKING HUGE. I have a MAG 58 parts kit and when I laid it out I was like " You've got to freaking kidding me..." www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CRXH-muly0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD2hV8uCkQM Watch the 2nd vid. As the belt gets close to the end you can easily hear the gun slow doen due to heat. The whole gun must have been hot as hell. Wow! That 1600 round torture test kicked all sorts of ass! And all from a compact little package that is the M60E4. If I were a foot soldier that actually had to hump around a 7.62mm machine gun, that would be the gun I'd want. What a sweet weapon.

What impressed me was that that was the thin profile barrel. I am wondering if they used the heavier profile if it would have acted like a more effective heat sink and delayed the seizing of the gun. Even so, the E4 is NOTHING like the original PIG that people keep going on about. The original left alot to be desired but I would not feel unhappy about schlepping a E4 into combat if I was given it.