@Green0

Who were you with in Samarra?

Every M60E3 (and later variants) had a rear peep sight, as opposed to the flat notched rear sight of the original M60.

As far as the hand-select barrels... That's interesting and I've never heard that before. All the barrels should have had a production tolerance specified in the government drawing. Idk what the tolerances (and resulting production variations) were, but now I'm curious.

Usually when one hears of an M60 experiencing a loose fit with new barrels, it's because the trunnion hole is worn out (inner diameter too big) and I didn't think that was a common problem on the E3 (and later guns) due to the bipod being moved off the barrel, and the fact that their entire production had the receiver reinforcement welds (which was a retrofitted work order for many of the earlier M60 receivers).

If a gun had an out-of-spec trunnion in military service, it should've been deadlined and had its receiver replaced (which was something kinda unique to the M60 - Replacement receivers actually had an NSN for procurement because so many went bad on earlier guns).

@Green0

I was with B co 1/26IN. Our time at the ODA house behind the cemetery at Uvanni were definitely interesting.

All depends on the task.  Vehicle mounted, dismounted, heavy weapons squad, squad weapon, offensive or defensive.  Unit doctrine and ammunition used ie rimless or rimmed.

For a rimmed cartridge the PK series is hard to beat.

For a squad light machine gun the M249 mainted runs great using its belts or PMags.  PMags can keep up.  Mk46 is a SAW without the magazine feed system.  Mk48 is a lightweight assault 7.62 NATO version but longevity of the system is what dooms it.  Bolts break at a high rate and is the one item I repair the most.  Second is shot out barrels.  Ultimaks MkIII are very smooth shooting but their proprietor 100 rd drums limiting factor.  USMC is now issuing a HK416 as an automatic rifle but can't be used in light machine gun role.  Same limiting factors of the M1918A1 BAR, BREN gun and RPK.  Lack of a quick change barrel as the gun will overheat eventually.  History has a way of pushing things out of roles.

M60s are what was issued when I came in 83' but we've covered its issues enough.  Only once fired the M60E3 back in 89'.  Worked fine for the SEALs who had it.  I've used the M240 coaxil gun, M240B, M240D and M240L.  Built to last.  M1919s lack a quick change barrel.  MG3s need a mitt like the M60 to change a barrel and rate of fire too high for dismounted.

Love a good M2HB and Mk44 minigun.  Any system needs the gunners to maintain their systems which includes a competence maintenance section with parts.


CD

@Combat_Diver
Have you seen anybody run D-60 mags in them? Would that be beneficial (to keep out foreign debris and speed-up reloads) versus a 100 (or 60) round "nut sack" of belted ammo?

Have you ever heard of any units with the MK46 wishing they had mag feed capability?
(and could they run an M249 receiver if they wanted to?)

What kind of rate are we talking about?
Didn't the MK48 Mod 1 improve this situation?

If you had a personal MK48 at your house, how many spare bolts would you stock up on, and would you take any particular precautions (or maintenance steps) that perhaps the military overlooks?
(My understanding is that continued use of the weapon as the gas port erodes causes higher bolt carrier group velocity, so maybe rejecting/rebuilding the barrel assembly earlier would go a long way towards PM?)

Seems like the best way to keep a personally-owned MK48 in service would be to run it in MK46 config (5.56mm) most of the time.
(but I'd be happy to be wrong about that.)

I see there's a MK48 Mod 2 in 6.5 Creedmore as a prototype for SOCOM... Any experience with that?

The ones I got to play with all used 100 round drums, and they'd accept AR mags if you drilled 2 holes in the left side of each mag. (That was the Ultimax 100 MK3).

The MK5 (and later variants) fixed that by incorporating a STANAG M16 magazine well.


I agree with you, but I believe there's still a place for an automatic rifleman (even with just an Automatic Rifle / HBAR) in modern squads, if (for whatever reasons), the particular organization doesn't wish to utilize a true LMG with quick-change barrels. (I'd also like to point out that Bren guns had quick-change barrels.)

For example, the Austrians (and some other militaries) issue the AUG LMG, but as far as I know their LMG gunners don't carry any spare barrels.
Russians are going from the PKM to the PKP, which cannot change barrels in the field, but is rated to fire a little longer at max firing schedule.

Is this the best setup?
No, not for sustained or final protective fire, but sometimes logistical and maneuvering/portability concerns outweigh max performance potential, instead favoring less weight and bulk.

As you stated, it all depends on the task, and recent US military tasking has involved a lot of dismounted MOUT.

If I were forming my own squad organization, I think I'd give each fire team an automatic rifleman (or LMG gunner), and assign one GPMG gunner per squad (with something like a MK48 or PKM to chew up light vehicles and structures).
That way there'd be 3 or 4 automatic weapons per squad (I favor USMC squads but I digress), and one wouldn't be firing intermediate cartridges.

The US military put the SAW in the hands of their automatic riflemen, who were previously issued an M16A1 (on Auto) or M14A1, so that was a huge improvement in sustained fire capability at the time the M249 was fielded.

Recently, with the IAR, it seems they wanted to trade the weight and bulkiness (of the stuff that provides that capability) for a lighter weapon, rendering greater maneuverability (albeit with less sustained fire capability).

I have an M60E3. It's got some quirks, but if properly maintained it works very well, fires/handles awesome in the dismounted/patrol role, and is relatively lightweight (although heavier than a MK48).

Yep, and that's why they're heavy.
Perfect for mounted use however.

I strongly agree, and feel the MG3 is often given too much credit in these discussions (overrated).

Man I wish i had experience with a minigun. M2HB is as high as I've gone (and it was sorta broken at the time).

The 240's heavier, but probably the best overall gun around.  Quick-change barrel, fairly durable, and no stranger to sustained fire role (which the British still teach and use).

The 60 suffers from getting the shit beat out of it and not being taken care of, as do most other GI guns (getting constantly re-built until there's nothing else left to give, and then suffers from being out of production with no available parts).

Whoever thought the SAW needed a magazine capability should have been kicked in the nuts until dead, revived, and repeat that cycle -- for eternity.

The Ultimax would be a nice 5.56 option if, as CD said, they had more and more durable ammo boxes.

I don't know about the IMI Negev, but I seem to recall the Israelis tried to blend the best features of the PKM with a barrel-change system.  India has adopted it.

The SIG 6.8 x 51 system looks intriguing and it's going to be interesting to see the machinegun's longevity with the hybrid case (brass body/stainless case head) ammo, operating at MUCH higher possible pressures.

It isn't out of production.

US Ordnance struck a deal to keep it in production in the US (when DOD moved to abandon it) specifically for FMS & FMA sales to foreign governments. (The most recent being M60E6 sales to Denmark in 2015, although the Norwegians have been looking at it too.)

That'd be Ernest Vervier, in Belgium. (He died decades ago.)
Same guy who designed the FN MAG (M240).

They're plenty durable.
CD said they were proprietary, and they were (but not anymore).

It's a great gun.

Yeah I've never even seen a Negev in person.
I'd like to try both of those.

10.5 lbs and controllable

I'd want the new KAC belt fed

Answers in red above.
since we are talking about the BREN
Attached File

Attached File

Attached File


CD