Noticed this site http://www.metacafe.com/watch/52637/m60_machine_gun-74k quite a weapon.A former Viet Vet Sgt gave a talk to our club members about his nam experiences he said he was one of the few early on who had a 50 bmg in addition to quad 60's but he preferred the 50 for clearing an area of trees & hootches ,etc.

They are an interesting gun, though hardly a perfectly operating one.

I had a brand new Maremont in 1983...bought it complete inside the unopened foil pouch, inside the sealed plastic bag, inside the unopened cardboard box, packed with the comic book instruction manual, asbestos "mitt", and spare barrel. Actually got it in payment for a bad debt from a fellow I had loaned $2,800 to. By the time he settled up, with interest his debt to me had risen to $4,200. I eventually sold it for $6000. Sure wish I had it back. Working civilian-legal Maremonts are now apparently selling for $36,000 and up, way up...Rock Islands for somewhat less.

But, to be honest, for daily use as a non-tripod mounted LMG, I'd rather have an as-new original Bren gun in either 8 m/m or .303.

I remember being able to go out annually in the Guard and requalify on the M 60... I sure loved that thing.. but never had to shoot it in combat....

We also had one that got the barrel melted by a group out on the range one time...

If I remember the Army said the barrel should be switched about every 200 to 300 rounds for cooling...a standard kit came with 3 barrels and a set of over mits, and the receiver....

on live fire, I have engaged targets out to 1200 and 1300 meters with that MG...althought 1100 was listed as max effective range if I remember...

it sure was fun watching those tracers at 1000 yds.. especially on night fire...

we had a bunch of hispanic guys, who were on ammo detail, put together a belt of 200 to 300 rounds of straight tracer... it was a straight rope of fire when they shot it off... of course they played dumb when the range officer jumped on their asses for making a straight tracer belt...

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
They are an interesting gun, though hardly a perfectly operating one.

I had a brand new Maremont in 1983...bought it complete inside the unopened foil pouch, inside the sealed plastic bag, inside the unopened cardboard box, packed with the comic book instruction manual, asbestos "mitt", and spare barrel. Actually got it in payment for a bad debt from a fellow I had loaned $2,800 to. By the time he settled up, with interest his debt to me had risen to $4,200. I eventually sold it for $6000. Sure wish I had it back. Working civilian-legal Maremonts are now apparently selling for $36,000 and up, way up...Rock Islands for somewhat less.

But, to be honest, for daily use as a non-tripod mounted LMG, I'd rather have an as-new original Bren gun in either 8 m/m or .303.

I'd have to take issue with your last part: "for daily use as a non-tripod mounted LMG, I'd rather have an as-new original Bren gun" I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the BREN as I am some other similar guns but the BREN suffered from the same short comings as the BAR, etc - could not readily change the barrel, fixed magazines, etc. Twenty rounds in full auto is not a lot of ammo, gun is useless without ammo loaded into mags, etc. The M14 suffered the same short comings - we toted 4 extra mags plus the one in the rifle which gives total of 100 rds - not a lot of ammo if you are in a firefight. The M60 was belt fed and this factor alone gave an edge to the M60. Amongst the complaints I know of and encountered with the M60 was a tendency to jerk the belts in two if fired with the belt cramped - ever see one with a Coke can or C-rat wired on the side, under the belt feed? The M60 was very intolerant of ‘long’ or ‘short’ rounds in the belt, also the ammo had to be clean or stoppages occurred. Also, the weapon was supposed to jerk the rim off cases and jam, would not shoot if dirty, barrels quickly overheated and could not be changed without the gloves – this was later addressed by adding a wire handle to the barrel - all sight adjustments had to be made at the rear sight and re-zeroed with each barrel change – not exactly ideal in combat. (The Marines especially disliked the M60 and were prone to use the BAR long after it was officially ‘out-of-service’ even though it required another cartridge in the supply chain.) Many of these criticisms can be attributed to improper maintenance.
The M60 Mk 43 Mod O as used by the US Navy – the version I’m familiar with – was a modified, more reliable version of the M60. It was also typically mounted and crew swerved which was a vast improvement over the standard M60.
Now from what I know, if you had chosen the MG42 or especially the MG34 w/ select fire as near as the trigger, I might have chosen it over the M60, provided I had LOTS of ammo! And I would take the M2 Browning over any of the above if I didn't have to tote it. Ma Deuce spoke with authority!
Not a criticism here but rather observations - the M60 was not the best ever - but it was the best we had!

quote:

I'd have to take issue with your last part: "for daily use as a non-tripod mounted LMG, I'd rather have an as-new original Bren gun" I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the BREN as I am some other similar guns but the BREN suffered from the same short comings as the BAR, etc - could not readily change the barrel, fixed magazines, etc. Twenty rounds in full auto is not a lot of ammo, gun is useless without ammo loaded into mags, etc. The M14 suffered the same short comings - we toted 4 extra mags plus the one in the rifle which gives total of 100 rds - not a lot of ammo if you are in a firefight. The M60 was belt fed and this factor alone gave an edge to the M60. Amongst the complaints I know of and encountered with the M60 was a tendency to jerk the belts in two if fired with the belt cramped - ever see one with a Coke can or C-rat wired on the side, under the belt feed? The M60 was very intolerant of ‘long’ or ‘short’ rounds in the belt, also the ammo had to be clean or stoppages occurred. Also, the weapon was supposed to jerk the rim off cases and jam, would not shoot if dirty, barrels quickly overheated and could not be changed without the gloves – this was later addressed by adding a wire handle to the barrel - all sight adjustments had to be made at the rear sight and re-zeroed with each barrel change – not exactly ideal in combat. (The Marines especially disliked the M60 and were prone to use the BAR long after it was officially ‘out-of-service’ even though it required another cartridge in the supply chain.) Many of these criticisms can be attributed to improper maintenance.
The M60 Mk 43 Mod O as used by the US Navy – the version I’m familiar with – was a modified, more reliable version of the M60. It was also typically mounted and crew swerved which was a vast improvement over the standard M60.
Now from what I know, if you had chosen the MG42 or especially the MG34 w/ select fire as near as the trigger, I might have chosen it over the M60, provided I had LOTS of ammo! And I would take the M2 Browning over any of the above if I didn't have to tote it. Ma Deuce spoke with authority!
Not a criticism here but rather observations - the M60 was not the best ever - but it was the best we had!

Interesting post and full of ignorance, with regard to, several of the weapon systems spoken of, but it is a free country and you can spew whatever BS you like.

Interesting post and full of ignorance, with regard to, several of the weapon systems spoken of, but it is a free country and you can spew whatever BS you like.[/QUOTE]

Excuse me, thought this was the "Military/Military Surplus" heading, was not aware I had stumbled into the "Political" arena. Of course, I'm quite sure your can - and will -expound at some length and enlighten us as to exactly what portion of my post you deem to be 'BS?' and full of ignorance of exactly which weapons referred to?

A number of "test to destruction" have been done over the years.

They usually rank modern GPMGs in the following order:

1) MAG
2) M-60
3) MG3 (the modern MG42)

The M-60s used in the test have been the original or product improved weapons but not the E3 or E4.

The MAG is a fine, reliable weapon. Clearly more reliable and longer lived than the "pig." The M-60 does have the advantage of portability and usability from the shoulder or waist. Hard to honk an MAG like that. There are very few in the pool of transferable guns. As a result they are astronomically expensive.

The Seals like their short barreled 60's. They are VERY, VERY loud and (as one fella said) "the bad guys tend to get their heads down when they hear it."

Most reports indicate that the E3 version had a lower reliability that the original gun, primarily due to the lighter barrel. The E4 now being produced is by all accounts a very much improved weapon. Time will tell if it breaths life back into the weapons system.

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the BREN as I am some other similar guns but the BREN suffered from the same short comings as the BAR, etc - could not readily change the barrel,

Sorry, but that is an error.

The barrel was quite easily changed on the BREN.

Rather than type it all out for you myself, here is a quote from a Bren-gun site:

"The Bren was an excellent light machine gun, being simple, strong, accurate and easy to fire. It was remarkably free from stoppages and other vices. It was a gas-operated weapon, using a long-stroke principle. The barrel was removable and locked to the body by a quick release nut. The gas block was on barrel and mated with the gas cylinder, which is below the barrel, but the block could be drawn outwards. Changing the barrel was both quick and easy, as the carrying handle is on the barrel, thus reducing the risk of burns. It was recommended that the barrel be changed every three magazines to allow the hot barrel to cool beside the gun."

And, you'll note, I was not referring to all GPMGs, but to LMGs fired from the waist or prone from a bipod.

Most important, I was saying what _I_ would rather have, not which was the "best" of the American army.

And I always preferred the Bren gun to the either the M60 or the
BAR.

Of course, the BAR was also available in an interchangeable barrel version too, though not in the U.S. Army. The Belgian version,of the BAR, the Model "D", DID have easily interchangeable barrels.

You are welcome to prefer the M60 if you wish, I have no quarrel with that, but I do not prefer the M60 myself.

(My Maremont, as mentioned, did NOT come with three barrels, but with 2, 1 mounted, one spare).

Did not intend to start a spat, just expressed my preference. (I also once had an FG-42, but still liked the BREN best for my own use.)

Alberta Canuck:
Can't argue with what you say; as I noted in my original posting, I have never used the BREN personally. My reference to the BREN and the BAR should have specified the barrel change applied to the BAR, not to the BREN. Sorry, I'll have to proof more closely in the future. And I still think a belt fed automatic weapon is superior to any with a magazine. I never had to carry the M60, all the usage I experienced was firing from a mounted gun carried on board a boat. The M60's usage as a SAW would have no doubt changed my mind if I had had to hump it in country. And for a mounted weapon, I still maintain the M2 Browning fifty has never been equaled.
And as you note, personal preference is exactly that, personal preference. I like the Browning HiPower probably better than any handgun I have ever used yet I am no great fan of the 9mm - so figure. The BREN was of no doubt a great weapon, I just have no experience with one. The MG42 was an 'improved' version of the MG34 (read 'cheaper') and the select fire feature found in the trigger was dropped. The Stoner M63 was another great weapon with the hundred round box but not very common, the only ones I ever saw were used by SEAL teams, and they were a close-mouthed bunch so not much discussion.
So, in summation, I think availability of a given weapon and the usage to which it was put would determine how effective it was. I doubt anyone would argue as to the effectiveness of the MG42 in WWII yet even the German troops complained about the tremendous amount of ammo the gun used; I believe the cyclic rate was some 1200 RPM or about twice that of the Browning light thirty. Another complaint I read about was the short barrel life of the MG42 – but they must have had lots of barrels!
So, as you note, I never posted this to start an argument but rather to share my own views and experiences. And I really wish I could own any one or all of the weapons we have mentioned. Can you just imagine how scarce spare ammo would be if one owned ANY of the weapons we have spoken of here???

I was always impressed with the simplicity of the M3 "Grease Gun" built for WW2.

I carried 3 m60s in the military during the early 80s. At least one was a new issue. At any given range event, about 1/3 of the guns had problems. I was also in a high priority unit (82nd Airborne), so our guns were the best available.

I find it very hard to get excited about an m60.

for having used a M60 for tests, I would not give up a french made AA52 that I carried and used a bit. (especially when having to carry them)

The Berlin Police Recruits (who used to train as infantry in basic training) MG3s had an Eagle carrying a swastika stamped over with a cross and MG42 stamped over with a cross and replaced with MG3......

Add in coal scuttle helmets, leather webbing and ribbed canteens and the overall effect was rather disturbing to us assembled (British) officers.

The Bren barrel is a piece of piss to change. I can't remember off hand how to do it but if you put one in front of me I'd pick it up right quick. A corporal's boot on my neck would steepen the learning curve somewhat. It was our squad weapon in the late seventies early eighties, chambered for 7.62 Nato and using FN-FAL (We called them R1) magazines. So there was plenty ammo for the MG. Last three or four rounds out the mag would be tracer.

Lefty's got off lightly because a lefty could not shoot it with offset sights.

A government inspector for military contracts was a gun nut, and my family pheasant hunted with his family.

He brought home a .308 belt fed machine gun that said "Colt" on the side. Every 5th round was a tracer.

I was 14 in 1965 and a 12 gauge shotgun recoil would set my back a foot.

But the machine gun had not kick at all.
I got to shoot up an old truck and a toilet.

I assume now that is was an M60.


I knew a guy who fought in Viet Nam that told me that the squad screw up would be tasked with carrying the bottom end of an M60, as there is no good way to carry it.

M-60's require a fair amount of lubrication, which caused fouling to gunk up. That resulted in stoppages.

When they worked, they were slick. But they didn't work slick in the dirt, which is what war is all about.

Pete,

One simply depresses the lock button (located on the underside of the barrel nut lever) and pulls up on the barrel nut lever. The barrel assembly then slides forward and out.

I did not know Colt made M60s, I thought only Maremount and SAECO did...

Well now, I first fired an M60 in advanced infantry training at Fort Ord in January '65. We had several of them (10 or 12) on the line and the one platoon of us fired up a companies worth of ammo in some very good training. Since that time I've used them as a scout in Vietnam (Recon/1/503d, 173d), in the 101st, in the armored cav, in SF and in the NG. I earned my SS using an M60. Recently I assisted several units to qualify with them at Fort Lewis during mu own units mob in Novemebr '04 for OIF. I have used them in training, in combat (in "the dirt" in two wars) and always found them to be an excellent machine gun. I have seen them misused as SAWs and as individual weapons. Currently the M240Bs (MAG 58s) are experiencing the same problems that the M60 experienced after a period of service and later on in a war. They are wearing out, they are poorly maintained and the soldiers using them are poorly trained. On the 800 meter Transition ranges (ranges 91 & 92) at Fort Lewis I have many times had M60s alongside M240Bs. With equally trained crews both guns perfomed equally. My point is the key word to the use of a GPMG (even if ground mounted on it's bipod) is "crew". They are crew served weapons. If you have a trained crew they are awesome. If the crew is not trained then none of them perform well.

BTW; it is an apples to oranges (or just plain silly) comparison of a SAW (used to be called "automatic rifle", i.e. BAR, Bren, etc.) to any GPMG or even a LMG in a dismounted role.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
I did not know Colt made M60s, I thought only Maremount and SAECO did...

I don't know if the belt fed 308 machine gun [borrowed from a military supplier] I shot in 1965 was an M60, but I know it said "Colt" on the side, which surprised me, as I thought they made only cowboy guns.

If you type "Colt M60" into Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=colt+m60&btnG=Google+Search

It looks like Colt did make M60s.

As an Army helicopter crew chief 67-68 ( 119th AHC) I became very familiar with my M-60. It was the only MG most of us knew so we had little to compare it to. Overall, we considered it a good gun. Most problems were related to use on aircraft, especially feeding problems. Everyone had their favorite methods and fixes; my favorite was clipping a B-3 can on the side to act as a feed ramp. The quick change barrel feature was not used in the air and rarely used on the ground.
The FN GPMG may be a little better gun, but the 60 was at least adequate. It seems all MG's require training, experience, and some TLC to be effective.

I read through about 10 pages of the Google search returns. None indicated that Colt actually made M60s. Most of the returns resulted from the fact that Colt's M16 based LMG (heavy bbl, open bolt, hydraulic buffer) could be fitted with an M60 tripod.

The usually referenced makers of military M60s are Maremont (a division of Cadillac-Gauge), Saco, Saco-Lowell, Saco/General Dynamics and the new guy US Ordnance (M60E4/Mk43).

Colt owned Saco for a short period from 1999 to sometime in 2000 when business got tough.

There were a number of folks that made civilian available M60 either as rewelds or from scratch in full and semiauto. But I've never heard Colt as one of those.

My experience with the "pig" has been good. As the saying goes ... worked for me.

Who made the "Rock-Island"s?

Rock Island Armory was a company started and owned by the brother of the fella that started Springfield Armory. They did rewelds first and then scratch receivers (I think) as well as short fluted barrels w brakes (I have one). They went out of business eventually.

I don't think they ever sold weapons to the military so I would include them in the group of makers who built civilian available weapons before 1986.

A 60 with a short barrel sounds like an M2 .50 cal. Very, very loud!