Corps to Replace SAW With Automatic Rifle

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Please elaborate on your PERSONAL experience with M60s.

Dusty - You're suffering misplaced nostalgia! I'll stick with a 240; the MRBF is MUCH higher.

Hey, Bro, I could hit the V-ring at 600 meters. Can you do that with a .22?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Hey, Bro, I could hit the V-ring at 600 meters. Can you do that with a .22?

Once upon a time; no shit, there I was - yes. It's a lot easier now with the 77 and 80 gr match ammo.

Wow, sorry I brought up the ol' M60 thing, but I'm with Dusty, the M60 rocked. It sounded great, created confidence in the squad, and meant the "enemy was engaged." I had no problem carry the pig or relieving another who was. Also, anyone, (and it was expected too), could carry another 200 rds., giving 2000 additional rds available aside from the basic load of gunner and AG.

Same can be said of other systems, but the M60 kicked ass. My dad talked about the 30 -.06 in the BAR and how it sounded, it made many get up and advance in battle. You knew someone was having a real bad day on the receiving end of BAR fire.

Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by wet dog

Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?

Now, that's another example of a weapons system you'd prolly wanna be uprange of...

[PSM]

Originally Posted by wet dog

Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?

Here's a little range action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2nSnUGIBA4

Pat

[mojaveman]

I kinda liked the PKM. I shot one on the range one time and that thing didn't malfunction once.

[Peregrino]

When I was in Santa Ana, ES the quartel had an arms room full of ancient FMS weapons including M1s, 1917s, and 1919A6s. We rehab'd six (? this happened in 1986 so my memory is failing) of the 1919s because we couldn't get enough M60s for patrolling and we still had several fixed security sites that needed crew served weapons. With several hundred thousand rounds of 30-06 in tins there was considerable sense in recycling the old "warhorses". We kept the 1917 WC to play with at the Cuartel. Sweet toy; a true joy to shoot, even without the water reservoir. We had to improvise the packing around the barrel to keep water in the jacket but a series of 50 round bursts just left it "gently steaming", reminiscent of WWI stories of heating the water for afternoon tea. With the T&E (and a lot of sandbags on the tripod) cutting silhouette targets in half was child's play. To this day I still have fond memories of "the Brownings of Santa Ana".

I humped the pig for several years too. I much prefer the MAG 58/M240. MOO but mean rounds between stoppages more than made up for its lack of a forearm. Personally, I think the USMC will eventually regret getting away from the SAW. Magazines just can't beat belts.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Peteyboy

Personally I think they should just modernize the M60

Based on what?

I want to see how well these replacement weapons run when they have as many rounds through them as the M249s do.

I had eight M-60s in my Scout Platoon. Most were usually in maintenance and those that were not were fine examples of the world's heaviest single shot 7.62 rifle. The M240 is a vast improvement, if slightly heavier, and the MG3 would have been a better substitute as well, if politically acceptable.

TR

[craigepo]

M60=23 pound deer rifle. I hated that thing. I hated how undependable they were, hated how heavy they were, hated the spare barrel bag. The MAG58/M240 is light years ahead.

We tried to help out the Puerto Rican National Guard with their M60s. We took their 60s to a range. I lost count of how many of their guns we deadlined in one day. Pieces were breaking like it was going out of style.

Originally Posted by Peregrino

With the T&E (and a lot of sandbags on the tripod) cutting silhouette targets in half was child's play. To this day I still have fond memories of "the Brownings of Santa Ana".

Sweet.

PSM, thanks for the link.

[HOLLiS]

Just talked to a friend who carried a M60 in RVN (67-68). I did not carry one but was trained in the M60 (Ontos Crewman). By the time I was in-country the Ontos was gone so I walked for a living. I don't remember any real complaints with the M60, yes it was heavy but so where our packs. Loads where shared among other Marines. My friend, who retired after 29 years as a Sgt Maj was gunner in the battle of Dai Do, so I think it safe to say he put a lot of rounds down range through a M60. With my recollection and his comment was something I have always heard. Cleanliness of your fire arm was important. Only problem that he had was a few times with the feed paws.

As far as the poor quality of the M60, I wonder if they were old used up ones? I just can not remember anything bad being said about the M60. Hearing, "Guns up" was nice sound. We did feel that Mr. Charlies AK was better than our M16s

Also he said this is a pretty heated issue. He stated that it is felt that NATO may have something to do with this.

Personally, Belt fed should not be dropped. But, I am working on old information.

[Iraqgunz]

I was a pig gunner in basic and they were still at my first unit when I reported in. As a matter of fact the M240 didn't show up until I was out. The only M240's we had were the ones for use in the Bradley (about 2 years later).

I believe that there is a company that has a much improved M60 (E4 variation) and they claim that it is robust and more reliable than it's predecessor. If FN can produce an M240L with a titanium receiver I wonder why they can't do the same with the M60? I believe that another one of the improvements was with the gas piston. The new design will not allow it to be installed backwards.

As for this upgraded HK416. I was under the impression from the guys I spoke with that it was going to supplement, but not completely replace the M249.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by HOLLiS

As far as the poor quality of the M60, I wonder if they were old used up ones? I just can not remember anything bad being said about the M60. Hearing, "Guns up" was nice sound.

IN 1970, my platoon carried 2 M60's. We did not have problems with the mechanics nor ammo. Daily cleaning of all our weapons kept the dirt and rust to a minimum. Contact was a couple time a week..

When we were rotated into the FB,, maybe every 4-5 weeks(??), we would have Mad Minutes at night where we would fire everything into the wood-line to discourage Charley. The guys would link 4 or 5 belts together, in a neat pile, and sandbag the barrel and let it rip. There were mini-contest to see who could fire the longest belt. We also did the same with the M16, They would truly glow after 10-12 20 rd mags.

No Problemo..

Now it was heavy and mechanically complicated so I would vote for something like the MG3/MG-43,,, belt fed,, 7.62x51..

Belt fed and 7.62 cal,, the bar the 5.56 can't reach..

[Dusty]

Problem with M60's was that they had to be regularly cleaned and PMCS'd. Don't know about the 240's.

[bravo22b]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

IN 1970, my platoon carried 2 M60's. We did not have problems with the mechanics nor ammo. Daily cleaning of all our weapons kept the dirt and rust to a minimum. Contact was a couple time a week..

When we were rotated into the FB,, maybe every 4-5 weeks(??), we would have Mad Minutes at night where we would fire everything into the wood-line to discourage Charley. The guys would link 4 or 5 belts together, in a neat pile, and sandbag the barrel and let it rip. There were mini-contest to see who could fire the longest belt. We also did the same with the M16, They would truly glow after 10-12 20 rd mags.

No Problemo..

Now it was heavy and mechanically complicated so I would vote for something like the MG3/MG-43,,, belt fed,, 7.62x51..

Belt fed and 7.62 cal,, the bar the 5.56 can't reach..

I'm pretty sure that my platoon had those same two M60's in 1992.

You can't beat a 7.62 belt fed machine gun. As many with more experience than me have pointed out, the sound of a M-60 firing drowned out the SAW's, letting everybody know that some serious lead was going downrange. You also can't beat the improved penetration and damage a 7.62 round does.

All that said, the M60's we had, although well loved, had a a bad habit of shooting themselves to pieces. The buttstocks would vibrate off, leaf springs constantly falling out (although tied down), etc. It was not uncommon to start off a company SBF position with six M60's firing and end up with one or two left trying to shoot through everyone else's ammo.

I've never fired a new M60, but the M240 sure seems to me like a better weapon.