Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Current M60 that can spit out 10 000 rds non stop
Rasputin    5/12/2007 12:27:32 PM
I am quite puzzled by the development of this super M60. Just when one would think there are quite a number of fundemental flaws in the M60, they are able to make it perform as though it had a water cooled or radiator attached to the barrel and shoot out 10k or rounds. My question is, why are doing it only now? Just when the armed forces have gone to the FN MAG or GPMG en mass for armour as well as infantry, even some aircraft, then SACO finally decides to make the improvement after they.... got replaced. And that is after their M60E3 got rejected. Mighty inconvinient timing???? Besides the helicopters, who else gets these super M60s?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       5/16/2007 6:26:45 PM
We have BOTH M60 clone and FN MAG clone. Our M60s are both made in US and locally produced Type 57 machinegun, but the barrels were not made up to the same standard. The State Arsenal 205 copied early version of FN MAG as Type 74 which is god sent except the old type the gas regulator, which has some small parts that get lost quite easily. Only certified armorer and experience senior NCO are allowed to disassemble those parts. An army major told me once that he and his collegue once put extra weight on their Type 57 and it out-shot ROCMC's Type 74. Most Type 57s are not in use, and we have tonnes of Type 74 by now. some pics
 
The .50 Cal is FN BMG QCB. Yes, quick change barrel type. No more head space messing around, but it is not as reliable, though.
 
Thanks Horsesoldier for feeding us info.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/16/2007 10:06:06 PM

As for the M60 E3 that the marines fielded, I can't remember the reason why the US army replaced it, perhaps there was too much modification to make an original M60 into an M60 E3. Come to think of it the timing is always wrong for the American 7.62mm machine gun. Some have stated that the M60 replacement to the FN240 came 20 years too late.



I've heard that the M60E3 proved to be unreliable.  The Marines actually, if I'm not mistaken, started the switch to the M240G slightly earlier than the Army and the M240B.
Another issue for both services, though more so the Army, was simple economics.  Since the M60 based vehicle coaxial machinegun (M73) was an utter and absolute failure, we'd already had to adopt the MAG for vehicle use.  It did not really make good economic sense to have two seperate but basically redundant weapons systems in the inventory.  (It certainly did not help the M60's case any that the M240 was a superior design as well, in terms of reliability and ergonomics.)
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/16/2007 10:12:07 PM

Have you encountered the Mk. 48 in your lil' corner of the Army? It looks light and handy, but must roar like a dragon.

Thanks,

Cato


I haven't.  They're in service over in the sand box, but we don't have any available for training in my unit (crew served stuff is not really one of our primary training responsibilities).
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       5/16/2007 10:49:05 PM








I've heard that the M60E3 proved to be unreliable.  The Marines actually, if I'm not mistaken, started the switch to the M240G slightly earlier than the Army and the M240B.

Another issue for both services, though more so the Army, was simple economics.  Since the M60 based vehicle coaxial machinegun (M73) was an utter and absolute failure, we'd already had to adopt the MAG for vehicle use.  It did not really make good economic sense to have two seperate but basically redundant weapons systems in the inventory.  (It certainly did not help the M60's case any that the M240 was a superior design as well, in terms of reliability and ergonomics.)


I know that for the vehicle surface mounts, the M240 will be exactly the same, but for internal vehicle mounts, like coaxial guns, did the M60 have the solenoid electrical button trigger gun? There are plenty of those for the FN MAG and even more for the PKM.

Please confirm this, I seem to remember that  tankers, which are basically those that drive the M1 abrahams tanks, were the first to get the FN MAG 240 surface mount, possibly coaxial? All the way back in desert storm and sometime before?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/17/2007 12:15:46 AM
I know that for the vehicle surface mounts, the M240 will be exactly the same, but for internal vehicle mounts, like coaxial guns, did the M60 have the solenoid electrical button trigger gun? There are plenty of those for the FN MAG and even more for the PKM.

Please confirm this, I seem to remember that  tankers, which are basically those that drive the M1 abrahams tanks, were the first to get the FN MAG 240 surface mount, possibly coaxial? All the way back in desert storm and sometime before?

Googling the topic, I may be mistaken on the M73 lineage (but that's assuming Wikipedia is right . . . and not confusing the M73 for the earlier M37, which was the same idea . . .).  In any case, M73 was (if I'm not mistaken) a variant of the M60 that featured a much shortened receiver and solenoid firing, etc.  It had a reputation as a machingun that usually could not fire an entire belt of ammunition without suffering a stoppage of some sort.
 
The US Army started replacing the M73 with the M240/MAG in 1977.  I think M60 tanks were the first AFV to be retrofitted with the M240.  I know that by the time I enlisted in the early 1990s, we still had M60 machineguns for dismounted use, but I have never seen anything besides an M240 coaxial MG (or, on M1s, loaders machinegun).
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics