Also, when was it replaced.  When I was in the Marines, the ones I shot seemed to work fine.  After shooting the 60s all morning I don't recall many jams, and none in the first hour of shooting.  After a couple of thousand rnds and no cleaning, then sure they would jam.  I thought they badass.  I've read where the replacement, the MAG 58 I believe, is heavier but it is more reliable.  Someboby give me the skinny, maybe someone on active duty.

Because it was too good, just like the M1911A1 Pistol.....

Jams and runaway guns.

You might not have seen many jams on clean guns, and you shouldn't have. But you shouldn't have seen any jams on dirty guns either. The M240G will fire all day, clean or dirty, hot or cold.

Remember in MCT/SOI, being taught how to twist the belt to stop a runaway gun? I've seen it and had to do it.

I EAS'd in 1996, and the first M240G's were just hitting the fleet.

YMMV.
Jarhead out.

In the book, "unintended consequences", the author rips on the M60 as being a piece of sh*t. I can't remember exactly what he said about it, but in general, said it was poorly made. I didn't like the book, anyway.

Yeah Jarhead, I remember MCT/SOI.  Never saw a runaway though.  I was a radar tech in the Corps so I only got to shoot the 60's about twice a year on average.  I liked 'em.  From what I've read the new MAG 58, I believe that's it, is just an awasome MG.  I just didn't think the M-60 was that bad.  I got out in '94.  Is their anyone one active duty here that has shot the new MG?

Didn't like Unintended Consequences!?!?!?!

Well, the M60 and M60E3 were high maintenance items and most of our (in the GCE) were starting to wear out, so it was either buy new M60 or acquire M240G that the army had for no cost to us.  When the M60 was tested against the MAG 58 back in the 60s, the MAG won hands down.  The M60 was adopted because it being made/designed here.  The M240 is only a little heavier than a M60, but a lot heavier than a M60E3, and when you throw in the flex mount for the M122, you are talking about a 58 lbs system.  Because of the stability of the flex mount though you can engage targets out to 1800 m.

What little experience I had with the M60 was all negative.  If it didn't jam, it ran away.  

The M-60 was based on the German MG-42 series of machine guns. The MAG 58 is based on a Browning design. Even though it's built in Belgium, it is more 'American' in design than the M-60.

Both the MAG 58 and the M-60 have feed devices based on the MG-42. The M-60 has a gas system that was designed in the US in the '50s, while the gas system on the MAG is the BAR gas system inverted. In other words, the M-60 is at least as 'American' in design as the MAG 58.

I used them both:  The M60 was a rattling piece of junk.          

The M240 was a beautiful piece of machinery and reliable as hell.

I was an instructor at Gunnery Skills Branch of the Armor School in '78. The M240 was just being fielded to replace the M78/219 coaxial machinegun on the M60 series tank. The M60E3 was tested as well, but soundly beaten by the M240. The Marine Corp, who also trained tankers at Ft. Knox, went with the M60E3. When the M1 tank was fielded, the M240 was also fielded both as a coax machinegun, and loaders flex weapon.
I have fired tons of ammo from the M60, we had them mounted in the backs of M151A2 Jeeps, 'ala rat patrol'. They worked OK, as long as they were highly lubed. The M240 worked all the time. It has a gas regulator with 8 settings, and a rate of fire of between 700-1100 rpm as I recall. (based on regulator setting and fouling) It had much more positive feeding than the M60. The test guns were feeding from the ammo box on the side of the turret, they were set up for the short receiver M78/M219 coax. So the ammo had to jaunt back to go into the receiver of the M240. They fed so hard, the original feed trays bent. The M240 had a little retainer welded on the feed tray so it would not bend. The original test gun also cracked the buffer at 30,000 rounds, but kept firing the 200,000 required by the test. The buffer was made a bit more robust for the M240. The M60E3 basically shot itself apart at about 75,000 rounds as I recall.
The M240 mounted easier, two quick disconnect pins, the barrel changed easier and faster. The barrels were chrome lined.
Just to tell you what kind of abuse they could take, I sent two National Guard Lt.'s to get 2 cans of ammo. Instead of the 2 200 rounders I was expecting, they brought 2 mini gun 1500 round cans. We could not turn it back in, it was near the end of the range day, soooo...
I linked the ammo together, took the spent casing bag off, put 4 .50 wooden crates (each crate holds 2 .50 ammo cans) below the ejection port, and let fly. In less than 5 minutes I shot off 3000 rounds. The receiver was cherry red back to behind the feed tray. Tracers were cooking off in the barrel, instead of the usual 30 feet or so down range. The gun had to cool down for an hour before it could be removed from the tank for cleaning. It worked fine after that. (it was not my machinegun, we used tanks and guns from the 194th Armored "Slave" Brigade)
The M240 is being built by FN in South Carolina at the same plant the M16A2 and M16A4 are currently being made. It is the finest GPMG in the world. The M60 is OK, but is nowhere in the same class as the Mag58/M240.
BTW, the M240 was accurate as hell. I routinely shot targets well in excess of the 800 meter effective range (tracer burn out was at 800 Meters) using the ballistic computer and range finder on a M60A3 on targets out to 1500 meters or so.    

If weight was an issue - and it should be with everything that a grunt has to hump - then they should have taken a PKM and modified the feed system for 7.62x51 NATO's "push-through" links. It's a 17-lb gun, has no buffer yet still exhibits almost no felt recoil, and I don't think anything needs to be said about its reliability and simplicity.

i was a weapons plt commander, had six m60's, 1989.  the scary thing about e3's was the thin barrel, designed to save weight, but we were warned that if the barrel got very hot it would warp and bullets could rip out the side of the barrel and cause injuries. the older m60 barrels were thicker and more sturdy.we made sure the barrels were changed at a regular interval.  our m60's fired a lot of blanks and live ammo, lots of cleaning, worn,and did spend a good amount of time being serviced by battalion armorers, jams were not uncommon just had to be dealt with.  proper mg safety was strictly enfoced.    

We could probably do one better than that by adopting the Vector SS-77, it takes the best of all the words systems and combines them into a weapons system the SADF has been using for a while now.  If I remember right the PK was tested against the MAG 58 and the M60, The MAG out did it by a little margin, while both beat the hell out of the M60.  But alas the same NIH syndrome that stopped the adoption of the MAG in the 1960s would have stopped an Americanized PK.

Don
The M60 uses the gas system of the FG42 (which for some stupid reason can be assembled backward) and the feed mechanism of the MG42.

STG
The M240, at least the current issue version has a 3 position regulator plug.  The ROF of the ground mount is 650 to 950 depending on conditions and regulator setting.

Can someone describe the barrel change procedure for both the M-60 and the M-240G.

The MG-42 was a damn effective weapon in it's day. Any reasons why an exact duplicate wouldn't be effective now? Too long, too heavy, etc. I've seen the Tales of the Gun episode where they show a barrel change on the MG-42. It looked ridiculously easy: push a lever releasing the barrel, extract breech end of barrel using mit, insert fresh barrel, close lever. The show said an experienced crew could change out a barrel in under 8 seconds. Are current MG barrel changes faster?

Noname and STRLN,

Thanks. I completely forgot about the MG1/3 series.

I've ben wondering why they didn't go with something of a heavier caliber, myself. I do have a lot of fond memories of the good 'ole '60 (none of which seem to involve carrying it, though). They shoulda kept it, in my opinion.

Yo Wadman, the MG42 is still in production. The Bundeswehr adopted it in 1957 in 7.62x51mm and called it the MG1. Updated version is MG3. 1150-1350 RPM. (Still Hitler's Zipper!)
And leave us not forget the little bastard stepchild CETME Ameli in 5.56x45mm...

To change a barrels
M240: with bolt to rear, you push the carrying handle to the lock position, push in the barrel change button on the left side of the gun, rotate the carrying handle to unlock the barrel and push it forward.  All you have to do to put a new barrel on is index the gas plug with the gas piston and the barrel with the receiver, pull the barrel into the receiver and rotate the carrying handle until the handle hit the far side.

M60: With bolt to rear, flip barrel release lever, while wearing asbestos mitten grab barrel (even with the M60E3 it is recommended you still use the asbestos mitten) and pull off receiver (with E1 if not mounted on M122, gunner has to ensure weapon doesn't go into dirt since bipods are part of barrel).  To place barrel back onto weapon, index barrel to receiver and gas cylinder with the head of the operating rod (inside of receiver group) once the barrel was seating the barrel release lever was flipped down.

Noname
The MG3 has two differant standard ROFs 700 RPM+/-50 RPM with the light 550g bolt/booster/rear cover and 1300 RPM with the heavy 950g bolt/booster/rear cover.

In short because it sucked. In MCT in 1995 I was lucky enough to be the only class to shoot both. I loved the 240.

How does the M240 stack up against the HK 21? I'm just curious because HK is so well known for their products.

themao [chainsawkill]

"Why did US forces replace the M-60?"

So we could have them [}:D]

i carried one for almost 2 years. enjoyed constant jams it would not shoot long enough to run away.but here are some highlights of 60 problems.the gas piston can be installed backwards. the gun will fire 1 round only, then must be cleared. the barrels have an allowable 10 degrees of play in front sight.and have a bipod and complete gas system on the barrel that adds to both cost and weight. Also the stelite liner in the barrel will eventually loosen up as the gun heat cycles. the sear is prone to rapid wear which causes most runaways.

I carried a '60 for two years and thought it was decent. As a weapons squad leader, I was in charge of two 240-g's. Awesome weapon. High rate of cyclic fire, just like a big version of the m-249(saw) which is a POS. The 240 is definitely a superior weapon. The M-60, however, served the U.S. well for many years and it will always be "THE PIG".

RLTW

When I was in the Marine Corps the M60E3 ran okay, when clean. When dirty it would jam.
Then I joined the guard, with the regular 60s. What a bunch of pieces of crap. They wouldn't work clean or dirty, and they didn't even zero, thanks to the barrels.

Once upon a time serving in another Army, we used the MAG58. I though it was tops! Then I decided to move to Australia where the M60 was used, along with the MAG58 too!

I fell in love with the M60. Armourer friendly, and simple. I don't like the way the bbl changes, and yip, you can put the piston in backwards. But look what happens if you fuck with the gas reg on the MAG!

The M60 is simple, and the bolt can bite you on the op rod too, but I think its a great gun.

Good news on the M60! Rumour has it that since the M60 was taken out of service in Australia, instead of the MGs being destroyed, the Aust Govt is selling them back to the USA. For what? Who knows? Maybe you can tell me.

I was on a M60 team for a year and a half, and I loved it. If you took care of it, it took care of you.

Hey Maggot, I thought I would hear someone say that.  The ones I used were great IMHO.  But it seems that the general opinion is that the MAG 58 is better.  That is cool too.  I'm glad to see that the US military thought enough of it's troops to upgrade.  I guess I just hate to see the 60 go to pasture.  After all, it was the a charactor in "First Blood", "Full Metal Jacket", and many movies in my teen years that made me want to go into service.

Just think, some of us poor suckers have yet to shoot a machinegun that isn't in a computer game.  [:(]

could someone please post a picture of the M240?

As a former Pig hauler, I would say I have mixed feelings about it. When they work they can be effective. The problem is the M60 seemed to be malfunction prone. Mine was well used that I carried. Take into consideration I have never fired a new one. I would have rather carried a MG34, MG42, or a MG3. On a number of occasions when I was supposed to initiate a ambush with my 60 it turned into a bolt action rifle. As for the SAW I thought it was a great weapon. It would rock and roll. A couple of times I would switch with a saw gunner to carry it. A lot of us Pig Wrestlers seemed to spend more time praying for war than rest of unit. We knew if we went to war we would probably be given new one that would work.




Happiness is a belt fed weapon



No Slack!

All the flavors of the M240:
[url]http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m240/m240main.htm[/url]

More info on the M240:
[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m240g.htm[/url]

The M240G:
[img]http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m240/bigm240g.gif[/img]

The M249 SAW:
[img]http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m249/m249-ed1.jpg[/img]

The gas piston can be put in backwards, which will result in single shots because the op rod won't be kicked back far enough to feed a new round. The bolt roller can be put on backwards, which won't really harm anything that I can think of, but you'll have a hell of a time removing the bolt plug's cross pin because the 2 holes for installing/removing it will be at the other end of the roller. You have to lube the hell out of the pin and slap the bolt against something to get the pin to work its way out through the large hole at the "wrong" end of the roller. You can also put the firing pin spring and its sleeve in backwards, which could lead to a jammed gun if the spring gets trapped between the firing pin spool and op rod (it's easy to tell if it's in backwards - when properly assembled you shouldn't see the spring.) And lastly, the sear spring and plunger can be put in backwards, which can cause a runaway gun because the spring can kink and no longer push upwards on the sear to stop the gun when the trigger's released.

In several units I was in (both at Ft Sill OK, but even though I liked the post there was a general lack of a "combat mindset" like you'd find in an infantry or armored division), this was a problem because M60 "crews" were thrown together at range time without regards for whether they were actually assigned a gun - one time 2 of the battalion's medics were crewing a gun. The M60 is a relatively simple weapon, but an afternoon of PMI before the range should NOT be considered as training on the gun. When inspecting the weapons before opening the range, it wasn't uncommon to find half of them with the gas piston in backwards or frozen (or both), no lockwire on gas cylinder plugs, or radial and/or axial play in the flash suppressors, among other indicators of poor maintenance. Shame on those armorers and section chiefs!

Why, it should be obvious - they're going to be given to law enforcement agencies just like the surplus M16s were.

I believe surplus military arms are either destoryed or given to foreign countries.

Only a handfull of US property marked M16's were ever transferred to LE (and hence able to be made "transferrable" on Form 5's). These were years ago to the LAPD and are the handful of un-cut US property-marked M16's available to you and me and are very rate.

That's the way I heard it anyhow.