Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/20/2006 5:44:35 AM EDT


anyone else see the video of the "new m60"?

there is a short clip with some commentary from tthe editor of AFJ.

i wanted to know if anyone had any more info...


Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:18:50 AM EDT
what?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:26:43 AM EDT
Tank or MG?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:28:50 AM EDT
I saw a vid of the new model with a hardened barrel.

They linked 850 rounds and squeezed the trigger for a solid 1:45 of non-stop F/A goodness.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:31:46 AM EDT
Are you talking about the M60E4?

They did something to the barrel so it wont shootout the rifling under sustained automatic fire, i'm no expert, thats just what they say in the video.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:37:51 AM EDT


i'm not sure what the deal is. i only saw a short clip in which the new and improved barrel was mentioned and showed about 15 sec. of firing.

i was hoping someone could shine a little more light on the subject. i didn't know if there were some major improvements on the old dog, or if they just had some little upgrades...


Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:39:57 AM EDT
New M-60 ??? Sweet .

Some of my fondest memories in the Marine Corps were behind an M-60 . Not near enough though
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:23:43 AM EDT
Dont see any reason to fix it, we have the 240 series now
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:43:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
Dont see any reason to fix it, we have the 240 series now



Some unit (Special ones) still have versions of the M60 because it's lighter.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:00:10 AM EDT
I've got the video saved on my computer. As they talk about the improvements made to the M-60, in the background they're still going through 850 rounds of ammo the entire time for just short of two minutes of sustained fire. And according to the commentary, the barrel is good for either 1,500 rounds or 15,000 rounds, I forget which.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:05:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 8:41:18 AM EDT by Mr45auto]

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
Dont see any reason to fix it, we have the 240 series now




hmmph, 240....dang kids...



I spent alot of time in the field with the Pig and yes it had it's share of problems but it's still a damned good gun regardless of what Peter Kokalis has to say about it. If I could own a 60 or 240 I'd take the 60 every time. ( of course I've never shot the 240 )

I have personally fired a ridiculously long belt in one single pull of the trigger on the old 60 and by god it was incredible. We "had to" burn our ammo before the end of the year and I wsa allowed to link several assault packs together and burn em off. To think I got tired of holding the trigger down just makes me sick today. I'd gladly kill 3 grandmothers to lay behind the 60 again.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:15:07 AM EDT
I'd say it's more like 15,000 and even that's not really that much. 1500 is just a single field problem in some units.

And the barrel isn't as important as the rest of the gun. I'd rather replace the barrel on a gun that works, than have a long lasting barrel on a gun that won't fire all that much anyway. And yes the M240B (or G for you Jarheads) is much more reliable than the M60 or any series.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:20:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
I'd say it's more like 15,000 and even that's not really that much. 1500 is just a single field problem in some units.

And the barrel isn't as important as the rest of the gun. I'd rather replace the barrel on a gun that works, than have a long lasting barrel on a gun that won't fire all that much anyway. And yes the M240B (or G for you Jarheads) is much more reliable than the M60 or any series.





Heck yeah it is. I'm not sure if I've told this story before or not, but I'm going to tell it anyway.


We got the M240B and the gun teams went to the range to familiarize and qualify. I was there as a gopher. One of the gun teams in my platoon had a newbie at the AG slot and he was just learning the job. As he's feeding the belt into the gun, the BIG cleaning rag the doofus left by the ammo belt got tangled into the belt and ended up getting fed into the gun.

Well, on the M60s we just rid of that would've caused a stoppage... but on the 240 it just fed right through the gun. With a lot of new holes and tears.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:25:24 AM EDT
you guys know we have that video of the e4(?) firing an 800 rd belt posted here, right?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:37:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:40:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:43:32 AM EDT
Wow.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:46:44 AM EDT
Link didn't work for me.

PS: And...I don't want to get back to work
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:49:25 AM EDT
didn't work for me either...you guys need to get out more.

link's at the bottom.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:49:37 AM EDT



yep, that's what i saw, but not the whole thing. it was only like a 20sec. clip of that, but it got my interest piqued.


Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:57:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:59:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
The whole world uses the 240 and has since the earlyl 1960s.
Only the US hangs on to the idea that the 60 even compares.

Never forget, the 240 was ultimately derived from the genius of John Browning (BAR)



Tell that to the SEALs, becuase I think they're the only ones who still use it.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 9:10:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
The whole world uses the 240 and has since the earlyl 1960s.
Only the US hangs on to the idea that the 60 even compares.

Never forget, the 240 was ultimately derived from the genius of John Browning (BAR)



Big +1, just like the FAL/M14 debate.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 9:10:31 AM EDT
I'd be suprised if the AF didnt still have a large quantity of 60's.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:27:09 PM EDT
A local machine gun range uses 2 US Ordnance M60 e4s and they have shot over 100,000 through each gun without any major problems.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:49:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 8:31:48 PM EDT by DvlDog]
most old 60s get demilled due to reciever stretching. i talked to some AF guys who had never shot a 240 till they got in the sand and thats what they got. back home at their airguard units all they have are hogs.

i still dont understand what problem this is supposed to fix? i thought that Mk 48 or whatever it is, the SAW scaled up to 7.62 was what was going to replace the piglets with NAVSPECWAR? to me this looks like a solution in search of a problem.


know why they phased out the 60? cuz they quit making c-rats and everyone knows you need a c-rat can to make the pig run right
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:41:32 PM EDT
I for one was glad to see the M-60 go, it had so many problems that it's difficult to remember them all.

The carry handle isn't attached to the barrel, you need an asbestos mitten to change it when hot. What idiot designed that feature?

The bipod is attached to the barrel, instead of the reciever.

An excessively large number of parts, compared to the M240 or SAW.

You can't mount optics easily.

The piston in the spare barrel was always rusted in place.

Frankly, by 97, they were worn out-even when they got rebuilt by the depot, they still sucked.

The army is going to titanium recievers to help alleviate the weight problem, and the MK 48 will be used by SOCOM units. So long M-60, it's about time.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:54:07 PM EDT
M60E3-E4 fixed every problem you just listed.

P.S. Whats wrong with an American manufacturer making a machinegun for the U.S. Army?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 9:04:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 9:18:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Joe_JBGuns:
M60E3-E4 fixed every problem you just listed.

P.S. Whats wrong with an American manufacturer making a machinegun for the U.S. Army?



Whats the MRBF on the M60E4?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:24:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:

The piston in the spare barrel was always rusted in place.


They wouldn't do that if they were maintained correctly - just like any weapon.



Correct, I've never had a piston rusted in place.

Glove to change barrels? It's there but only a noob gunner used it. You push the lock, flip the lever and rotate the receiver off the barrel. Let the barrel fall and install the cool one. Glove....pffftt... dont need no stinkin glove.

When maintained properly and with a good gunner the 60s run very well.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:11:28 AM EDT
YES - whats wrong with an american company workin hard to make a great product ??

the 60 is still an awesome weapon.
i fired both the 240 and e3 in full auto. both are great. try humpin a 240 around for a month.
youll be draggin it.....

long live the PIG !!!

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:14:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 5:17:29 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
I'd say it's more like 15,000 and even that's not really that much. 1500 is just a single field problem in some units.

And the barrel isn't as important as the rest of the gun. I'd rather replace the barrel on a gun that works, than have a long lasting barrel on a gun that won't fire all that much anyway. And yes the M240B (or G for you Jarheads) is much more reliable than the M60 or any series.



+1
we were forever replacing broken sears and bipods.
I would take an FN 240 over the "Pig" anyday.

Of course, I would prefer the MG3 if given a choice, but I wasn't.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:20:45 AM EDT
Damn, that thing looked like it didnt even have any recoil.

On the M60's we fired, if you fired more than 10rds in one burst, the thing would start to get all over the place.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:24:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Change Your Shorts Before Clicking



OMG, I have a funny tingling that feels very good where I pee.

3 to 5 round burst? Pffffft!

I humped the pig and the saw, and they are both a blast to shoot!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:27:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:42:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
The whole world uses the 240 and has since the earlyl 1960s.
Only the US hangs on to the idea that the 60 even compares.

Never forget, the 240 was ultimately derived from the genius of John Browning (BAR)



Tell that to the SEALs, becuase I think they're the only ones who still use it.


Pardon me if I don't felate at the alter of the word "SEALs"
They are also under the belief that the 60 is an individual weapon. Tre' macho, to be sure. But pretty impractical in most circumstances. They show 60s and M14s on the discovery channel specials but in most instances (as I have been told by those in the know), M4s and SAWs are their real world weapons of choice.

The weight issue is really a non-issue with the 240Gs which save about 5-6 pounds over the B



+1

Saw a SEAL team a few weeks ago, they all had M4's, M4 Commando's, Suppressed M4's or shortened SAW's that were all painted camofluged.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 6:11:19 AM EDT
A bunch of haters here.

I think that evaluator was one of our instructors at the arfcom Blackwater class.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 6:17:35 AM EDT
SEALs have replaced/are replacing the M60E4 with the FN MK48, which is basically a upscaled M249.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 6:20:08 AM EDT
M60 was replaced partially due to the fact that in its standard configuration, it was a bitch to do barrel changes without dumping the gun and barrel in the mud, aging weapons, and the fact was that the M240 is a tough weapon system. I loved the M60, the few times I handled one, but the M240 was my baby.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:11:50 AM EDT
I was a SAW gunner in the USMC as well as a "PIG" gunner. The M60E3 I carried in the MARINES was a "good" weapon if properly maintained but most were worn out and abused. Overall, I prefered the SAW for its weight and what I considered better reliability. I carried the SAW in both the Gulf War and Somolia and found that if properly cleaned (and proper use of the adjustable gas) it was very reliable.

Now I personaly own an RIA M60 E4. This RIA was new and upgraded to the E4 configuration by US Ordnance (at their factory). This is one damn fine weapon system and at this point I am up to 6-7K rounds (which I know is not $#%& in the real world) through it and have yet to have a malfunction of any type. NONE!!! NOT ONE!!! The belt pulling strength is amazing and very strong. The E3 model does not even compare to the E4. The E4 upgrade makes the "PIG" into a "HOG".

I have never carried or shot a 240 so I can not compare them. I know some of the guys I have talk to stated that the 240 is very heavy after "humping" it and can be akward to deploy, but it is very very reliable.

Is there a need for the M60E4 in today's military? I do not know, but I damn sure love mine!!!


Semper Fi,
ASO544
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:11:32 PM EDT
HOW is the RIA 60? did you ever fire it before us ord re- did it?
how long did they have it?
thanks
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:17:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
Change Your Shorts Before Clicking



OMG...that rocks!

I bet his shoulder hurt after that too... But who cares!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:20:38 PM EDT
I never thought that the barrel was the problem with the m60......it was the fact that they were totally unreliable. The m240, from firsthand reports, is very reliable (some of us had to qualifiy with it when I was in the USAF, thank god I wasn't one of them....it would have been fun, but in the long run, humping that bastard, having to know all of the stupid types of machinegun fire, etc was a bigger pain in the ass than shooting it was worth).
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:46:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 6:38:50 PM EDT by ASO544]

Originally Posted By BSOG1:
HOW is the RIA 60? did you ever fire it before us ord re- did it?
how long did they have it?
thanks



I bought it right after the conversion was done (only 400 rounds were test fired by owner). As far as the RIA receiver and manufacturing, everything is top-notch that I see. I am very happy with it. I know it is not a Maremount but I can not see much if any difference. I think US Ordnance has halted its work on civilian MGs until this summer as well as selling parts.

Having first hand experience with the M60 E3, I can say the E4 is head and shoulders above it. I went to a limerock pit range and it was really windy. The damn sand caked everything but I still put 2000 rounds down range that day (in 100-200 round belts) without any malfunctions. The damn bolt, op-rod, and top cover was coverd with dirt and fouling but it ran perfect. Now, its it better than a M240? I can not say, but I would not think twice about taking mine to a combat zone. I have that much faith in it.

Should it be replaced, I say yes, if there is something better in terms of reliability, manuverability, and weight. I still think the M60 could be a viable weapon system if upgraded to the E4 configuration, but I am pretty sure it will pass from military use.

Semper Fi,
ASO544
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:56:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 5:03:04 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:00:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
The whole world uses the 240 and has since the earlyl 1960s.
Only the US hangs on to the idea that the 60 even compares.

Never forget, the 240 was ultimately derived from the genius of John Browning (BAR)



And has some MG42 in it, another outstanding design in its own right.

The M-60 is a hunk of junk!!!!
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:09:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Joe_JBGuns:
P.S. Whats wrong with an American manufacturer making a machinegun for the U.S. Army?



Nothing. What would be wrong is giving a weapon to our boys not because it is the best, but simply because it is American.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:18:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 6:36:10 PM EDT

And has some MG42 in it, another outstanding design in its own right.





So does the M60, but I agree that the 240 is a better weapon system although I would hate to "hump" it. I'm still affectionate to the"PIG". Just call me sentimental!!!! I would own a SAW if I could afford one.

As for the M60 being a "hunk of junk", opinions vary, but a damn many US enemies are taking a "dirt nap" because of it. My 'hunk of junk" damn sure impresses everyone that gets behind the trigger. Reliable and a smooth rate of fire.



A thing of beauty...

Semper Fi,
ASO544
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 6:46:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ASO544:

And has some MG42 in it, another outstanding design in its own right.





So does the M60, but I agree that the 240 is a better weapon system although I would hate to "hump" it. I'm still affectionate to the"PIG". Just call me sentimental!!!! I would own a SAW if I could afford one.

As for the M60 being a "hunk of junk", opinions vary, but a damn many US enemies are taking a "dirt nap" because of it. My 'hunk of junk" damn sure impresses everyone that gets behind the trigger. Reliable and a smooth rate of fire.

www.usord.com/images/M60E4_large.jpg

A thing of beauty...

Semper Fi,
ASO544



It's more based on the FG-42 and the single feed claw was a bastardized copy of the MG-42's double feedclaw. The M240/FN MAG 58 copied the double feedclaw from the MG-42, both weapons are head and shoulders better than the M60 in design and reliability.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top