Piller, M60's

[BigSky56]

Speaking of M60's heres mine a modified 60 I ran it with doubled up springs in the feed pawls and 1/4 more recoil spring and 2 quarters behind the buffer then I relocated a C model 60 mechanical buffer from the gunship plt. that gun could run 8-900 rpm I had 3 extra bbls for extended firefights as you could get carried away and warp one. That c model buffer would finally stretch the receiver and you would have to rebuild them. danny

lohcockpit (2).jpg

[FWiedner]

I spent some between 1976-80 sitting behind an M-60D in the open door of a UH-1N. Occassionally mounted a GAU-2B.

THAT is my definition of FUN.

[C. Cash]

I had the kind that used to keep you warm all night. And yes those are an A1 and SAW behind me.

[BigSky56]

Wiedner were you a CE on a N model, heres some H model slicks coming in to pick up arvn's I was in the 4th bird back.

1st Cav. Div. Lives!.jpg

1 cav slicks waiting to go into a firefight B52 & A6's were making a bomb run so they were waiting for the smoke to clear.

photos_cav_tigner_02.jpg

Chris I had a assortment of personal guns, I started out with a 1911 & M3 GG changed to P35 & Swedish K then a walther MPK for when you go down and have to do "run thru the jungle" I also had a M79 thumper that I used along with the 60 and a assortment of frags. danny

[Ben_Rumson]

Me too and my own 60 I picked after a ground attack we suffered...I remember it had a shrapnel hole in the butt stock, a small one in the pistol grip and the front sight was bent over and cracked, might have been something wrong wth the hand guard too... At our Div. base camp there was a drive up window where you just slid the weapon over to them, and then in a flurry of movement a couple of minutes or less later you had it back fixed ... It ran fine but always wore the shrapnel in the pistol grip afterward...

[piller]

I know that the replacement for it is supposed to be better, but for those who could keep an M60 running, it was some serious firepower that was as accurate at the round is capable of. At the range, my M60 never missed the 1100 meter target, and that is way better than 1 MOA accuracy. 6 round bursts were simple to do, and I don't remember counting after a while. I did get a 1 day familiarization course on using one in the airial(?) configuration with the spade grips. The course was a bunch of burned out tanks and M113s that the Slick flew around in a preset pattern. It was a lot of fun and I was able to qualify for that course. I would have needed more time to be good enough to become a door gunner.

[Old Ironsights]

I happily humped a pig for the first few years I was playing. I really (really, really) hated my A1 and learned to single-fire my 60 from the shoulder.

Did I mention I HATED my A1?

Never handled a SAW, but it's not in a proper caliber anyway.

[Ji in Hawaii]

Okay, not this M-60 US Marines were still using them in 1991 Desert Storm!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_Patton

[C. Cash]

The grease gun looks like fun...played with them but never got to shoot them. Would seemm like an ideal jungle get away gun. The A1's never felt like a real rifle to me, but The Pig was fun....helped complete the ten foot tall and bullet proof feeling. But keeping those belt links together on a mission....much harder than Rambo made it look! Most of us wound up humping with a teaser belt to get things started and keeping the belts in the boxes in the canvas carry pouches, with one open and ready. Loved night fire.

[Old Ironsights]

Man, when I was Range Master the Grease Gun was my absolute FAVORITE toy.

We had a half dozen in our arms room with only 3 issued. ALL of them were smoothbores by the time I was In. Still, they were the most fun you could have on someone elses dime.

[C. Cash]

I happily humped a pig for the first few years I was playing. I really (really, really) hated my A1 and learned to single-fire my 60 from the shoulder.

Did I mention I HATED my A1?

Never handled a SAW, but it's not in a proper caliber anyway.

Play was my operative word as well. I only played at it. To all here who walked the walk, thank you! I couldn't even get into a scrape because of the peace you fellas bought us.
The SAW fired too fast for me and did not hit with the punch of the M60. It was easy to keep the 60 running and tons of fun to shoot, especially at night.

[olyinaz]

My old weapons squad. What's not to like about an M60?

I'm sure the new gun is a bit more reliable and stout, but we never seemed to have any problem running our 60s!

[Ben_Rumson]

Also in our Div base camp salvage yard were a couple of Connexs of captured weapons..... I' crack one open and pull out something cool from time to time when I was in there scrounging for truck parts....Other cool thing was being in an Arty maintenance unit I' drive into the ammo dump all the time with our wrecker to load ammo....... The captured ammo was in there too except for the bolts for the captured cross bows

[MrMurphy]

An an ex-M249 and M240 gunner who's had time on the 60....

The M249 is handy and reasonably light especially in the newer short-barrel and collapsing stock version. Puts out a lot of lead in a hurry for close range work, though it does lack the power of the 7.62 for stopping vehicles, for closer-in stuff it's good. Good rate of fire but you do have to watch yourself so you don't shoot yourself dry. The 100-round nutsack works better than the original 200 round drum (what I had to use mostly).

The M240 isn't 'new'.... it was designed in 1958. We adopted the M60 just like the M14, because they were American-designed, and it was the 50s. The M60 could have been an excellent design with a little more time spent on it. The M60E4? I think, the newest variant, fixes all the problems of the older models.

The M240 is the FN MAG-58, aka the British/Australian/Canadian GPMG L7, which they've been using for forty years. They had it in Vietnam, along with the 7.62-converted Bren guns. Over 80 countries have used the basic MAG design.....nobody else used the M60 unless we gave it to them.

The 60 worked when taken care of, my dad carried one in Vietnam and the Gulf War. I've fired the 60 for familiarization in the 90s, and we had five or six still in use in my unit when we really needed everyone on the line armed up and all the 240s were already out.

Just like the 60, the M249 has issues when it's been shot to death. The USMC had some issues with theirs in Iraq because in the usual case, they had 20 year old guns that needed replacing and a lot of parts that should have been swapped weren't.

Never had to use mine in combat, though we had a few close calls.

As much as you dislike the M16, I loved my M4, and having had to be number 2 man in a stack with a full-size M249 working in a tight underground bunker....a short handy carbine is a lot easier to use.. thus why the 14.5" barrel, collapsing stock M249 "Para" which had been in use elsewhere came into use by the Army.

[BigSky56]

Murphy, one of the failings of the 223 is it doesnt penetrate jungle foliage for squat If you have a clear shot it will work dumping a mag at a target behind trees and brush is futile thats where a 30 caliber shines different weapons and calibers for different jobs. I dont have any qualms with the 223 other than shooting thru foliage but I do with the delivery system, seems some GI's did too at the battle of wanat after a 30 min firefight.
According to U.S. Special Operations Command's SOPMOD (special operations peculiar modification) program office, "The current sustained rate of fire for the M4A1 Carbine is 15 rounds per minute and a maximum rate of 90 [rounds] per minute for short periods in an emergency."18 Firing the M4 carbine at cyclic rates of fire of 90 to 150 rounds per minute, "which is the rate of suppressive fire associated with machine guns" for prolonged periods leads to rapid heating of the barrel and possible failure. a couple of other papers talk about the M4/M16 the CNA study and CSI paper (cubbison).
I think the one major hurdle for a sgt. to overcome is the spay fever that gets ahold of troopers. MG's are built for extended fire quick change barrels, usually open bolt and throw the oil to them and you know when to change the barrel cause of the smoke and the bark changes tune. A rifle isnt a MG and when used that way it's destined to fail. Just the view from my saddle. danny

[MrMurphy]

You are correct on both counts.

5.56 depending on the load doesn't penetrate so well.

The newer SOST (USMC) or Mk262 heavy loads are barrier-blind and penetrate cover far better than the Vietnam era M193 and the current M855 (which ironically, tends to penetrate too much unless the target has armor on). I know quite a few guys who've gotten to use 'brown tip' (Mk262) on guys in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were quite happy with it's performance.

If you're shooting up mudbrick walls, yeah, heavier caliber is better, same with jungle foliage. The Marines figured that out about 1942 with Thompsons-vs-BARs. Same problem.

For urban warfare or places without heavy cover the 249's a good piece, for mostly long range engagements with heavy cover around the M240 and the new 240L (part titanium to cut down weight) do better. The 40mm MGL the Marines have, which lets you put six 40mm HE on target in about four seconds or so, is even better at really making people not want to be there. Can't remember our official designation for it, it's an Armscor six-shot multiple grenade launcher.

My time in, we were primarily concerned with short range security and portability, so the 249 was fine, we had the 240s turret mounted much of the time. When possible, tailor your weaponry to the location.....

One thing where the M60 shines that the 240 doesn't is actually being able to fire it offhand. The M240 ejects straight down, and as it's designed for bipod/tripod/pintle use the balance is further forward. It's ridiculously easy to shoot from the tripod and bipod, especially with a scope. Shooting one offhand can be done, but it's a little awkward. One reason the Brits have always (you see in pictures) had their GPMG gunners sling the gun waist-high and just walk the rounds in till they could get the gun onto the bipod. The Mk 46 or 48? variant of the M240 has a shorter receiver IIRC and can be shot offhand a little easier.

On the cyclic rate......yeah. Getting your guys to slow down and AIM not just throw lead in a hurry.... training issue. Not every unit gets as much training as it should, i've seen video of a M249 gunner decorating an Afghan hillside with a good 2-3 belts that were not apparently aimed at.....anything? They were taking fire, but not heavy fire and no NCO or officer smacked him in the head to keep him from wasting half his basic load.

[Paladin]

Used a M60 a few times, even in IOBC, as long as you could get the safety wire on the gas tube right it worked for me. I didn't get assigned to the CAV until they got back to TX in 73 buy got to play in about everything from that time on. I like a .30 cal a lot better than a M-16 but carried one enough and had no problems with it even shooting the first combat matches with a M-16A1 and A2 when they changed the format of the high power matches (twice) while on the rifle team with my M-14s. The only saw I used was the short barrel in Afghanistan we keep one in the office for the firepower in town over my MP-5. Some of the older guys taught me to used a M3A1 when I first got into SF and I like them alot we alway had a few in the locker for trips. I found a photo of my hotel room with all the odds and ends from the company I was with on the job.

[Old Ironsights]

MRmurphy: Like I said, I learned to handle my 60 quite well offhand for as long as I could hold it up anyway. Recoil certainly isn't a problem when your "rifle" is that heavy. Fire controll reallybisn't too hard either. Squeezing one off the belt with the 60's cyclic is pretty easy.

I'm sure the newer weapons are quite good, but *I* got issued A1s & 60s. (If I was really lucky I could get an A2+203 but that happened only once and for only one exercise...)

[MrMurphy]

I actually liked shooting the 60 the times I got to. Sergeant got ticked off when I fired a 3 round burst the first time out, just to see if I could.

It's definitely easier to shoot offhand. The new E4 variant has some applications where the 240 isn't as optimal but for a general-purpose gun, the 240 is definitely superior. Much faster and easier to strip as well. Basically, it's a BAR action inside a .30 Browning receiver, upside down, with an MG42 feed mechanism and fire control group, all held together by pins.


They all work, training and upkeep is really what matters more than anything, most military MGs get shot to death before they get new parts.