M60 GPMG soon history in US armed forces

[el Gringo Loco 1]

I've posted this thread a couple of months ago for the first time. But most of the US Armed Forces "know it alls" on this forum dismissed it as nonsense. So I'll post it again.

The US armed forces finally came to the conclusion that the FN-MAG is a far superior GPMG than the M60 ever could be. It's much more accurate and much much more reliable, sad only that it took the US so long to find that out (dutch forces are using fn-mag since the late 70s).

So now all the M60s are being phased out slowly and replaced by the M240 (fn-mag). Starting with all the special forces and the USMC. For some more critical observers (like myself) you undoubtly would noticed that the US armed forces took no M60s to afghanistan but M240s. This is the end of the M60 era. I shot the fn-mag and M60 extensively during my service time and back then I already couldn't imagine why the professional US armed forces would use a piece of junk like the M60s (only comment on my last statement if you actually shot both weapons extensively and know what you're talking about)

http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfil....ocument

US marine of the 15th expeditionary unit in afghanistan

[Guest]

Better late than never I guess

I've never fired either so can you outline what makes the FN MAG better? IIRC to replace the M60's barrel you actually have to grab it and yank it off which is obviously a problem due to it being red hot, but what else (other than accuracy)?

[second_draw 0]

How long has the M60 GPMG been in service. It must have been "in" for more than 40 years. Will it be a gun remembered for it's service or forgotten as yesteryear junk?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I have fired the FN MAG (C6) "extensively" but have never touched an M-60, Canada's Army never owned them en masse.

I guess the Canadian gov't had the sense not to waste money on them

If you looked closely at the movie "Apocalypse Now" (during the Gunboat scenes) and looked at the M-60 on the PT boat, you would have noticed something.

The M-60 had a tin can attached to the feed tray to help it feed properly, a reliable gun would not need this. I have heard the "tin can" story before from my MG course instructor, a guy who has been in the service for 20+ years and has trained with the Yanks countless times. So I am inclined to believe him.

He also told me that the Yanks had to carry alot of spare parts along with their M-60's because they kept breaking down so often.

The only spare parts that we carry for the FN MAG (C6) are the mainspring, extractor, and split collars ( because they are small and easy to lose)

The M-60 also has a lower rate of fire than the FN-MAG (500 rpm vs 700-1000 rpm for the FN MAG)

I'm not really "qualified" enough to tell you guys how much a piece of junk the M-60 is, but I can tell you that I think the FN MAG is a damn good GPMG. Very reliable.

Tyler

[red oct 2]

i think that the only thing thats gona happen to the M-60, is that its gona be replaced altogether. i saw this new machine gun on discovery i just cant remember what its called.

[el Gringo Loco 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Armourdave @ Feb. 04 2002,01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Better late than never I guess

I've never fired either so can you outline what makes the FN MAG better? IIRC to replace the M60's barrel you actually have to grab it and yank it off which is obviously a problem due to it being red hot, but what else (other than accuracy)?<span id='postcolor'>

The barrel on a M240 is changed by turning the handgrip anti-clockwise while depressing the barrel locking catch. There's no touching the barrel. The handgrip is actually attached to the barrel clicking a new one on is just as simple.

The MRBF of the M240 is a staggering 26.000 while the last M60 variant the E3 only reaches 1700. In the time the M240 fails the M60 already failed 15 times!

Field stripping of an M240 can be done under 30 seconds! (I know I could). Only drawback is the gassystem of the M240 is a little more complex than that of a M60. But the belgians invented some very nifty tools to clean the gassystem in the field without too much hassle.

The accuracy of the M240 (as with all FN weapons) is legendary for GPMGs. If the M240 is properly zeroed at 200m it is a mutha in laying down accurate supressive fire up to 800m.

The same effect with a M60 can only be reached by all time heroes Schwarzenegger and Stallone

When shooting the M240 from the hip it seems to be much more balanced than the M60. It doesn't require as much effort to keep the barrel pointing at the target. While the M60 has the tendency to start spraying when shot from the hip.

What should never be forgotten is when you take the butt of an M240 the bolt is always forward (no tension on the spring) otherwise the springloaded rod will shoot nicely through your stomach (In the dutch army this ia known as MAG-Harakiri).

The FN-MAG is also developed in the early 1950s and it is still the best GPMG around (those belgians obviously know their trade).

[riquin 0]

The FN MAG (also known as MAG 58) was first mass produced in 1958 right?

Also, it's interesting, If I remember right the US Marines first started using the M240 way before the US Army did. The Marines were always a little more ahead of the pack

[Wobble 1]

I though the M60 was being replaced by the M249 S.A.W (squad automatic weapon)    

and the US version is just called the M240.. not the "FN" anything.. its the same thing (obviousley) but does not go by that FN designation.

the US is now producing several variants of them.. a vehicle mount version, a shortened version (??) and a few others..

already couldn't imagine why the professional US armed forces would use a piece of junk like the M60

because they were rushed into production and mass produced.. especially during vietnam.. US couldent just throw away thousands of perfectly good weapons.. so as they break or wear out they are replaced by the SAW (or M240 apparentley) insted of repaired or replaced by another.. the M60 was made in haste.. in fact its almost a carbon copy of the MG42 german machine gune.. they are VERY similar..

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought the M60 was being replaced by the M249 S.A.W (squad automatic weapon) <span id='postcolor'>

Nope. The M-249 has replaced the M-16A1 full auto version in the U.S. forces. Remember, the M-249 is only a *light* machine gun and does not have the range, power, or usefullness of a *medium* machine gun.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US version is just called the M240.. not the "FN" anything<span id='postcolor'>

The "FN MAG" is just the company/factory designation. The "M-240" is just the American designation. The "C6" is just the Canadian designation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US is now producing several variants of them.. a vehicle mount version, a shortened version (??) and a few others..<span id='postcolor'>

The FN MAG comes with a number of attachments on the gun to enable it to be used for several purposes without modification (Light role, Sustained Fire role, Coaxial role, etc). There are other spare attachments from the factory. You can use the same gun for a number of uses without producing a new version. As for the "shortened" version, I haven't heard of it, there might be one though.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the belgians invented some very nifty tools to clean the gassystem in the field without too much hassle.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, don't get me started on the cleaning and repair kit!

Learing the names and functions of the kit was a few classes in itself.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">when you take the butt of an M240 the bolt is always forward (no tension on the spring) otherwise the springloaded rod will shoot nicely through your stomach <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, yeah, I've heard some scare stories relating to this. I beleive a few soldiers in the Canadian Army are missing teeth because of their carelesness. OUCH!

Tyler

[Wobble 1]

One time I was cleaning my stepdads (now mine) browning highpoer 9mm.. when I tried to remove the slide the spring shot it into my forehead with great force.. it ruptured some vein up there and my forehead swelled up huge.. I looked like a klingon.

[el Gringo Loco 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 05 2002,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One time I was cleaning my stepdads (now mine) browning highpoer 9mm.. when I tried to remove the slide the spring shot it into my forehead with great force.. it ruptured some vein up there and my forehead swelled up huge.. I looked like a klingon.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, now I know when your avatar photo was taken.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 05 2002,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One time I was cleaning my stepdads (now mine) browning highpoer 9mm.. when I tried to remove the slide the spring shot it into my forehead with great force.. it ruptured some vein up there and my forehead swelled up huge.. I looked like a klingon.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah, the beauty of captive recoil springs....

[Sandman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 05 2002,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US version is just called the M240.. not the "FN" anything<span id='postcolor'>

The "FN MAG" is just the company/factory designation. The "M-240" is just the American designation. The "C6" is just the Canadian designation.<span id='postcolor'>

In Sweden we call it "KSP58".

[Sandman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 05 2002,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US version is just called the M240.. not the "FN" anything<span id='postcolor'>

The "FN MAG" is just the company/factory designation. The "M-240" is just the American designation. The "C6" is just the Canadian designation.<span id='postcolor'>

In Sweden we call it "KSP58". (Just another example...)

I fired this baby alot...and it is great...the one thing that hits me about it is that its so accurate.

And firing at nighttime, with tracers, is so cool...

I fired some with the M249 SAW (or KSP90 in Swedish) also, but thats just like firing any 5,56 gun. Not nearly as cool as the FN MAG.

[Wobble 1]

Well the SAW's benifit is that the ammo it shoots is light.. I.E. 1 soldier can carry many many rounds out ammo for it and it doesent weagh nearley as much as the larger bullets.. the 5.56 is still a deadley round..

I remember that dingdong DANAK47 on the IRC saying that past 100 meters the 5.56 is as powerful as a .22 round.. despite the fact that its heavier and going 3 times as fast.. and that it cant kill past that

and that past 100 meters if someone was wearing thick clothes the 5.56 would "just bounce off and leave a bruise"

that still cracks me up.

[Mister Frag 0]

Wobble, that guy clearly doesn't have a clue, and he probably never shot any firearm in his life. I'd gladly let him prove his point by letting him put on five heavy jackets, and I'd even shoot him from 200 meters away with one of my rifles -- I guarrantee that he won't like the results.

That's the problem with the Internet, it is one big Loony Bin -- anyone can make any claim he or she wants, and it seems that the biggest and most vocal nut cases get the most attention.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And firing at nighttime, with tracers, is so cool... <span id='postcolor'>

Yes it is! Especially when you have 4 FN MAGs in the SF role firing at an armoured target 400m away, it remined me of something out of starwars! Very cool indeed....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DANAK47 on the IRC saying that past 100 meters the 5.56 is as powerful as a .22 round.. despite the fact that its heavier and going 3 times as fast..<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, some un-informed people can be funny, but annoying! .

I read one story about the 5.56 NATO round on a Vietnam veteran's webpage, and as far as I know, its true. Anyways, here it is:

---------------------------------------------------------

Back in the 70's sometime, this guy was conducting a range shoot for new recruits. They were at the 300 yard line and the wind was blowing head on @ about 25mph.

This requires a bit of explanation: does anyone here remember how they used to patch up targets in the old days? Well, if you don't, they used a paper patch and a type of glue/paste to attach it to the hole in the paper target.

Well, when the paper patch got a new hole in it, they would just put the patches over one another, until it got pretty thick. When the troops got out to the 300 yard mark and started shooting, the guy in the "butts" (a dugout where the paper targets are held up) stopped the shoot, something wierd was happening. Believe it or not, the bullets were sticking in the paper!, half in and half out!

I was pretty amazed at that one!

Tyler

[Mister Frag 0]

I'm not going to question the story that you relayed because I wasn't there when this event took place.

However, I do find it hard to believe. The currently used bullet (M855/SS109) is designed to penetrate steel helmets out to 800 meters, and in trials with the M249 SAW has been able to do that out to 1100 meters, outperforming the M80 7.62mm bullet. Even the old M193 55 grain bullet shouldn't have gotten stuck in the target.

The only thing I can imagine is that the firing was done with early-model rifles with a slow (1:12" or slower) twist rate that under-stabilized the bullet. When that happens, the bullet can actually tumble in flight, and loose a significant portion of its energy due to drag. However, the trajectory would also become virtually unpredictable, which would have resulted in very few, if any, hits on a target 300 meters away.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Yes, it will penetrate a steel helmet at 1100m, but it will do the same with kevalr?

It might have the same trajectory, but not the same energy as the 7.62 NATO round.

This story took place back in the 'Nam years, so I would imagine that they were using M193 ammo in an M-16 with a 1:12 twist.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> When that happens, the bullet can actually tumble in flight, and loose a significant portion of its energy due to drag. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, that did happen with the very early test versions that had a 1:14 twist, but that happened only AFTER the bullet entered an object, not before. The 1:14 rifles were innacurate in cold weather, so the U.S. went to a 1:12 twist rate and it worked fine. As a result of this, the bullet would no longer "tumble" in a target as it did before, this was known as the "meat axe" effect.

Tyler

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Oh, BTW, this is the WRONG way to load an FN MAG (this comes from the remtek.com site)

To load the MAG, squeeze the top cover's two spring-loaded catches and rotate upward to the vertical position. Retract the bolt and place the system on safe. Place the belt, with the open portion of the links down, across the feed tray with the first round resting against the cartridge stop. Rotate the gun clockwise on the bipod so the belt will remain in position and gently close the top cover. Slamming the top cover down with an iron fist looks professional - to amateurs, but only hastens damage to the top cover catches.

NEVER cock the action BEFORE you load ammo, yes the safety is good, but it is better not to take chances. We USED to load them like this, but this method has been changed and for a good reason!

Tyler

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, it will penetrate a steel helmet at 1100m, but it will do the same with kevalr?

<Snip><span id='postcolor'>

No, it won't penetrate a PASGT helmet at that distance, for instance.

However, my point was that the .223/5.56 can penetrate a steel helmet out to some rather long distances, so in order for it to be stopped by heavy clothing or taped-up paper targets at significantly shorter distances, something really unusual would have to take place or some improbable conditions would have to be met.

The case of the slow twist rate and light bullet is just one example -- there are instances of both under and over-stabilized bullets, but this happens only with bullet weights and twist rates that are at the extreme end of what is available.

The current M4 barrels with a 1:7" twist rate and 62gr SS109 bullets won't exhibit this problem. My rifles all have 1:9" or 1:8" twist rates, and I have never experienced bullet tumbling and the resulting keyholes in the target that result from it.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">something really unusual would have to take place <span id='postcolor'>

Unusual? well, I guess the head-on winds at 25mph might be unusual for shooting circumstances. That would cause alot of energy bleed, but I don't know by how much. Ballistic charts anyone?

Tyler

[Wobble 1]

Unusual? well, I guess the head-on winds at 25mph might be unusual for shooting circumstances. That would cause alot of energy bleed, but I don't know by how much. Ballistic charts anyone

Well the .223 is such a small and very aerodynamic bullet its hard to believe that a mear 25mph headwind would cause it to lose enough energy to not penetrate paper..

as for this paper.. how thick was it? who knows it may have been up for a LONG time.. hell the "patch" migh have been a foot thick..

as for kevlar and the .223 round.. I think it will penetrate it at relativley close ranges.. like 200m or under.. and SOMETIMES penetrate it out to 500 and after that.. probably not.. but that depends on so many factors its hard to generalize.. im sure some bullets could peirce it at LONG range... like the AP rounds.. ahh screw it.. shoot em in the head

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ahh screw it.. shoot em in the head<span id='postcolor'>

Easier said than done!

Tyler

[Mister Frag 0]

I don't think the 25MPH wind was a factor, while it would affect the point of impact, it wouldn't cause the bullet to tumble.

By unusual circumstances, I meant something like mismatched bullet weight & twist rate, faulty ammo, poorly adjusted sights on a rifle so that the bullets hit the dirt in front of the target and riccochet into it, etc.

I know the .223 will penetrate a Kevlar PASGT helmet (I have read reports and seen pictures to back it up), but I don't know out to what distance. It does offer significantly improved protection over steel helmets, and it will defeat all common handgun calibers. I have a PASGT helmet, but I'm not quite ready to use it for penetration experiments.