Wikipedia

Talk:M60 machine gun/Archive 1

< Talk:M60 machine gun
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Blamazon in topic "Terrible barrel change system with ridiculous asbestos glove"
Archive 1

Earlier comments

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Any chance of someone rewriting this in a les conversational and sarcastic tone?

I'll try to, at some point. This is definitely not NPOV. It's fair to discuss servicemen's perceptions of the weapon and its relative merits, but not with this kind of language. --Jpbrenna 06:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've removed most of the snideness, without obliterating the valid criticisms of the M60's combat effectiveness. Whoever put this together did a very good job, aside from the overdone sarcasm. I couldn't find sources for some of the opinions expressed, but since I have the feeling that whoever wrote them is BTDT, which I am not, so I left them alone. Still, I'm thinking it might be nice to eventually have some actual quotes from real soldiers and marines about the gun. Maybe we could start a Wikiquote page where we would juxtapose quotes from both official publications from manufacturers and the military with comments from grunts who actually had to use the thing. I'm sure there are quotable comments to be found in the many books, articles etc. about the Vietnam War and later conflicts. Any volunteers? --Jpbrenna 19:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xin loi Viet Nam, its about a machine gunner in Vietnam, who flew on a gunship. he said "... Each ship carried an asbestos glove to wear when changing hot barrels, but I never saw anyone use one. After I burned my hands several times, melting my gloves into my skin while changing hot barrels, I learned where to grab the barrel. ...", so the part, in my opinion, about 'Loss of the glove was always a problem.' needs to be changed. Another book is Guns up by Johnnie Clark. He was a machine gunner in Vietnam.71.145.132.120 01:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to question the use of the M60C as a co-axial MG. Only 563 were reportedly produced, hardly enough for the early helicopter gunship conversions and OV-10 Broncos (each of which typically used four apiece), much less the USMC's entire fleet of M48A3 tanks. Note, I said M48A3 not M60A1. The USMC reportedly did not get the M60A1 tank until 1975. This model was the first equipped with the M60E2. I suspect that the original author mistook the M60A1 tank for the earlier M48A3 series, and the M60E2 for the M60C. --D.E. Watters 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I can find no record of the M60C being used as co-axial either. Whats more, if they are talking about the M48A3, AFAIK it was fielded with the M73 mg, not a M60 mg co-axial (not until the M48A5). Ve3 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

According to D.E. Watters, the US Ord site used to say the Mk 43 Mod 0 was different from the M60E4. Now it claims they are the same. They differ in barrel length and flash hider used, which is often enough for a seperate designation and the treatment of the two systems as seperate. Thatguy96 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea, personally I can see it both ways (to say they are thee 'same' or not). I guess it depends on the context and how specific one is being when talking, such as about a specific variant or the family. I added some more technical details to make it clearer there is not just one variant. Ve3 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, there is also the fact that the Mk 43 Mod 0 used a special gas block, larger from the one on the E3 and E4, and a different model of foregrip.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=2083.1 is a thread I started about it.

Ok interesting, they are the same only in the most general context then. Ve3 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

From looking at pictures of early Mk 43 versus newer ones, I think that they started out different in the 1990s, but are now more or less the same. Ve3 23:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Has anyone heard about this plan to replace the M-240. That weapon is relatively new in terms of military acquisitions. I doubt this as special forces are testing a weapon based ont he M-240, the Mk.48. I doubt the military would keep on testing new concepts for a weapon that they are about to replace. The Mk.48 would effectively retire the Mk.43.

Barrel length does not matter on the M-60E4, as it can use many differant barrel lengths, so I would not say that the lengths were the cause for the seperate designation. I feel that it would be the reinforced parts on the weapon, such as the gas buffer.

The US Navy does use a differant system to catalogue its inventory. That is the Mark. Mod. system. For example, the SR-25 sniper rifle in the Army becomes the Mk.11, the SPR in the Army becomes the Mk.12. That could explain why one version is the M-60E4 and the other is the Mk.43.

Also, the new M-60E4 short assualt barrel can have 15,000 rounds put through it before having to be changed. If you do not believe me, I have a link to a website with a video testing that:

http://www.gun-world.net/usa/mg/m60gpmg/mk43mod0.htm To see the video, click on the video tape.

Also, I know the website is in Chinese, but they have really good gun pics.

AA-52 Comparable?

Is the M60 comparable in performance to the French AA-52?, I heard this somewhere but cannot remember where from. User:EX STAB

Infobox

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Replaced the current "manual" html table with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox createde by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Belt-Fed FG42 Prototype?

I heard the US merged the MG42 belt feed with the FG42 paratroop rifle during WW2, Is there any images of it?User:EX STAB

What happened to the whole variants section?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was fixing a link when I received an edit conflict warning because someone was editing and when I got back to the article the whole section was gone. As for the automated "too long" warning; it was not too long, it was just damn well done.

Fixed.
As for the "too long" warning, the article is indeed excessively long (which can cause the page to be "cut off" unexpectedly, resulting in the accidental blanking you just did), and could use a good cleanup. The problem is that there are a number of afirmations/details being repeated several times in the article stating the same things. The introduction is also excessively long, and things like the "Variants summary" only make the article even longer than it has to be. I'm afraid, however, that if I tried editing it down it wouldn't last long. —Squalla 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Even the uber-ignorant german Wikipedia has one!!! --Mikli 09:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It happened before I came here, or I would have been the one who kidnapped it :) - BillCJ 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I came specifically to this page to see if there were any pop culture references, and I was sorely disappointed. Who could forget the image of Rambo screaming will holding this weapon in one hand, blowing away all those new-fangled computers when he got back to the base. The best part about it is that it really happened.

Questionable move

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Why was this page moved? There was no explanation, no discussion, no consensus, and no need. "Machine" is not the M60's name; "machine gun" is a description. - BillCJ 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, carried away.

Is this stated somewhere on Wiki? I checked the Military History Project's naming conventions section, but it does't cover equipment. I understand your reasoning, though. - BillCJ 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You should have discussed things before doing these changes. The reason why "rifle" and "machine gun" should not be capitalized is because it is not part of the weapon's name; as BillCJ stated above, it is a description. These service weapons are commonly known by their designation ("M16", "M14", "M60", etc.) and officially known by a long designation (e.g. "United States Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16") which is not appropriate for an article's name. Therefore, the name for this article should be M60 machine gun, with the "machine gun" part only being added as a description, and to differentiate it from other articles of the same name (see M60). —Squalla 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is, of course, a descriptor and in text should not be capitalized unless it is part of the nomenclature. However, as part of the title, it should be capitalized. If you check most writing style guides, including some of the military ones, they recommend avoiding using m# nomenclature or numbers as the first word of a sentence/title because it can cause confusion as to why the letter is capitalized (m16 vs. M16) and result in the potential for number confusion when you have a period (in the case of text or a decimal) in front of a number. Capitalizing the first word of a title after an initial number when it is innappropriate to write out the number is the commonly accepted form.
And for reference:
Deathbunny 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not sure what the links are suppesed to show us. As for correcting the redirects to M60 Machine gun, you might want to wait till we get this settled. - BillCJ 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphan control/what needs to be changed to move everything going to M60 Machine gun to M60 machine gun. Roughly half to three quarters of these links were originally directed at one or more redirects. At least, if you guys change the title back it'll be easier to re-fix, eh? Deathbunny 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

The type of disintegrating metal link used with the M60 should not be included in the lead section. The lead section generally describes the subject of the article, and the M13 link is the kind of specific information that should be added somewhere else in the article. Additionally, it is not a component of the machine gun per se, and any other ammunition link for the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge can be used in the same function. The belt is not an integral part of the weapon, and the model/type used may vary. —Squalla 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The M60 only works with the M13 link and is integral to how it functions internally. Other 7.62 belt systems did not work (unless it is simply re-dsignation of the M13 link design). That said, the information can be more concise for introduction. Ve3 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the M13 link the absolute only system compatible with the M60?
Either way, I don't think the lead section is the appropriate place for this information. The M13 link may be essential to the weapon's functioning, but so are, for instance, the magazines and clips of so many weapons described in other firearm-related articles, and yet I don't see many of them citing the type of feeding mechanism in the lead section. I could also be argued that (for example) the bolt is equally important to the M60's functioning, and therefore should be cited in the introduction as well—which I also think would be inappropriate. —Squalla 23:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
M13 is the only one that works, as no one has engineered a new but backward compatible system. Its inclusion is both to describe that it used m13 links and that the feed mechanism uses the m13 as the feed system- just as saying the round it fires implies the traits of its barrel.
Listing every trait in the introduction is of course not needed, but I think belt types for belt-fed firearms are as important as ammunition.
Unlike the bolt type, the links are not integral to the firearm (like the rounds)- however they are unique and specific to how the firearm was designed. Ve3 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If the lead section is cut down into an "Overview" section (like I did previous to your revert), the information can easily be added there without spoling the lead section with in-depth information. I understand and agree that it is important information, and I am all for adding it somewhere in the article, but I disagree that it is absolutely needed in the introductory sentence, or even the lead section at all.
If you do a quick Google search for "M60 machine gun", you will probably notice that the M13 link is rarely cited in most articles. However, if we break the (rather long) lead section into an "Overview" section (much like with the M16 rifle and others), it would be worthwhile to have the first paragraph (of the overview section) say something like "The M60 is an air-cooled, gas-operated machine gun firing from an open bolt. It fires 7.62 × 51 mm NATO cartridges from a disintegrating belt of M13 links." I think it would be more reasonable than how it is now, and the information would still be there, just two paragraphs under the lead. What do you think? —Squalla 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
For goodness sakes squalla its 8 characters, just leave it alone. As for the the other paragraphs in the introduction, yes, it is far to large and Ill cut it down to size myself right now. Ve3 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the amount of characters has anything to do with the debate here. I hope you can be reasonable enough to discuss this properly, as I have taken the time to reply to you and propose a compromise. If you are not concerned about the quality of the pages you edit, I certainly am. It's worth remembering that this article does not belong to anybody, and my input is as valuable as yours, whether you care about it or not. —Squalla 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The amount of space is important, because you expressed concerned with the amount of space, and conciseness of the introduction (as am I). I too have taken the take to the time evaluate all your arguments, the quality of the page, and the various aspects of the article and respond to them in kind. In fact, I actually evaluate your opinion above the average editor, due to our long track record of discussion and focus on firearms. As for your aboce suggested sentence I think it is fine, and well add it to the article. Ve3 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I have posted a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force; I hope you're okay with it. —Squalla 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that is a great idea. Ve3 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's your daddy?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The M60's design shares mechanical similarities to the designs of the German MG42 and FjG42, especially the FjG42 (and the Lewis gun.).

However, in application, the M60 is clearly descended from the MG42 and (arguably) the Bren.

Prior to the M60's adoption, the US Army and Marine Corps made limited use of machine guns in at the platoon level, instead using essentially automatic rifles (M1918 BAR, Chauchaut, M1941 Johnson) in the squads, all characterized by (essentially) a one-man crew and magazine feed producing limited automatic fire. Compared to the medium machine guns in service, these weapons traded volume of fire for portability.

This loss of volume of fire was somewhat compensated for by the number and availability of semiautomatic weapons and the fire team concept of fire and movement within the squad. Power was built around the rifleman.

By comparison, the German infantry built their squads around the squad machine gun. Instead of moving in support of the riflemen, the riflemen defended the machine gun and furnished the squad the ability to hold ground. Power was built around the machine gunner.

The German method, ironically, builds more on the psychology of combat where crew-served weapons, especially those under supervision of an NCO, are much more likely to be fired and fired at the enemy in battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


Typo?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Additionally, the M60 uses a much simpler gas system that is, when care is taken during reassembly, easier to clean."

Doesn't the author mean the M240? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctica moon (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rambo's machine gun?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Isn't the machine gun of Rambo in the second one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.137.234 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, He uses the M60E3 in first blood part 2, He used the standard variant in first blood. User:EX STAB

Other Varients

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently ran across a copy of Small Arms of the 20th Century, 5th edition. inside there is a Maramont Light Machinegun. the weapon is a severly lightened M-60 machinegun. As I do not have a copy of that edition I was wondering if anyone did?Paulwharton 04:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing language Replaced but in service?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both this article AND the 7.62x51NATO article have confusing sentence structures in several places when talking about new replacements for these, while these items are still retained in the inventory and actual use.

Anyone up to cleaning the wording? --194.197.79.18 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture issue

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The photo of the "OH-23 Raven" is not correct. The helicopter depicted is an OH-13. Both the OH-23 and OH-13 used similar skid mounted machine gun mounts. Macadam (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization/cleanup

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is an extremely disorganized and messy article. I am going to attempt to clean it up as much as possible and reorganize it to be more consistent with other articles and less redundant. How many paragraphs about "firing 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges from a disintegrating belt of M13 links" do we need? The caliber (and usually feed as well) is literally mentioned at the beginning of every single section and subsection. The design and performance section is dedicated entirely to heavily criticizing every aspect of the weapon. I've already merged a few redundant sections. Some guy (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I had been working on a sandboxed version in my userspace and brought the changes over, but someone moved the images in the meantime, and I think I screwed up my attempt to incorporate the images into the modified text. I am not sure about the best way to set up the images, but as WP:Manual of Style was cited, I think I should point out MOS suggests staggering images as I did before. Some guy (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree that this page needs cleanup and structural organization. I would like to continue this effort and help to better this page by taking care of some of these issues. I will start a sandbox or sub page and will post a note to all when I do. Would appreciate feedback form my fellow history buffs and gun lovers out there! Ashur000 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Ashur000

M60E4 short barrel vs. assault barrel

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states there was only a 0.7 inch difference in length between the two. Perhaps these are actually the same barrel but in one case someone rounded the length down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuslatrans (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The assault barrel is heavier and fluted. They are not the same barrels. Both are listed on the US Ordnance website. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

About 90% of the text of this article is dedicated to criticizing the M60, presenting it as a horribly flawed weapon with almost no good sides. The article presents almost no history about service use of the weapon (say, Vietnam) and most of the history covering it being phased out of the military and replaced by the M240. I renamed the design details section to "design flaws" to reflect the current mood of the text that falls under that section; this is an inappropriately POV section that should at least be reflected by a suitable section heading. Some guy (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Having used the M60 during many of my years in the US Army, it *was* a horribly flawed weapon. many of the problems are mentioned: flimsy sheet-metal stamped parts, putting the (heavy) bipod on the barrel rather than the receiver (so you had to tote around an extra bipod with each spare barrel), non-adjustable gas piston that could be assembled incorrectly (turning the MG into a single-shot), the need for safety-wiring of the gas system to prevent it from disassembling...

Unmentioned were the issues with the bolt and op-rod assembly beating themselves to death, the sear chipping and failing to control the bolt (resulting in a very dangerous "run-away gun"), the poor sights, the flimsy charging handle that was easily damaged, the bolt assembly that would disassemble itself and destroy critical parts during use...

Just about any soldier or marine who had ever used the M60 and then used the M240 (FN MAG) would agree with the tone of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.118.180 (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard and read similar things. I wonder why the hell they kept making new versions of it. Anyway, regardless, I think it's bad article form to only focus on the negative aspects of the weapon. It would be a lot better if the history section discussed the actual service use - more than half the history section is about it being phased out. Other than that there might not be much we can do about it, but it should at least have some sources. Some guy (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
First, please note, this is my first time using the talk page, so I do apologize if I am not using the proper technique or etiquette, or otherwise mucking it up, do feel free to let me know if I am erring. I felt the need to weigh in on this topic. Trying to look at this with an unbiased perspective, I frankly have to say, it does seem rather biased. The M60 is a fine weapons system in many regards, and though it certainly has its share of technical issues, this is true of a good many weapons still in use longterm use, for example the many issues with the M16/AR/Stoner Platform. Most notably Eugene Stoner's grave error is using the direct-impingement gas system. Does this mean the the entire concept is a useless piece of crap? Certainly not. The M60, in my view, is much the same deal. It has its flaws, but it still remains an excellent weapon. On a side note, I've heard from many of my service buddies still on active duty in the Corps that the Marine Corps is actually keeping many of the M60E3/E4's in service for the short term, especially in Afghanistan, and instead replacing the M249's in Iraq, as a short-term fix for the inadequacy of the 5.56 round in punching through hard cover in urban terrain. I doubt this would be the case if the M60 was really that horrible. I've carried and fired an M60E3 myself, in combat, on a few occasions, and while there are certainly other support guns that I would prefer over the M60, it is still a very effective weapon, provided one cleans it and performs maintenance at least as often as an M4/M16 (which is literally just about every moment you ain't in combat or on patrol, I'll grant). Oh, and one more note, @unsigned, I no have firsthand experience with E4 variant, but I understand that some of those issues were addressed with the latest iteration, and I can also state, unequivocally, that some of those issues were actually introduced with post-'Nam variants, as two of my relatives handled the original in Vietnam and found only the overheating and cleaning issue to be a serious impediment to it's combat effectiveness. ProudRedneck (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"Eugene Stoner's grave error is using the direct-impingement gas system." Hardly grave or even an error as it was used for a reason. This among other statements you make lead me to doubt your qualifications to comment on what a fine weapon system is or is not. The fact is more users by far have noted the catastrophic failure rate of the Pig than those who can honestly claim to have had it serve as a reliable and fine weapon. Citing it's use over the 249 as evidence of it's reliability isn't valid here as it is the round fired not the weapon that is the main concern. Putting 10k rounds downrange that will not have any effect is obviously worse than putting 1k downrange that WILL have the desired effect. What probably needs to be done is to simply post the results of the comparison tests done. The FN MAG 58 (became the M240) was tested alongside the M60 with very disparate results between the two: FN MAG- MRBS 2,962, MRBF 6,442. M60- MRBS 846, MRBF 1,669. This article is as neutral as it can be considering the horrific performance of the M60. (````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAKD (talk • contribs) 16:36, April 14, 2012‎ (UTC)

Most of the issues raised were in the MG42 but they were common for all GMPG class weapons of this era. As the lighter end of this group of weapons the M60 is less "robust" then the MG3 or M240 but there is always the trade between weight and reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.207.100 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is had for me to see the neutrality in this page and I would like to address this issue with some changes to the page. I have read many other weapon pages on wikipedia and this page baffles me, it is very negative, which is fine to show but no balance with any positives about the weapon. Is this article about the M60, it's history and its modern variants or is it about the products that FN sells/manufacturers and how it is trying to take the place of the M60? This is an M60 page right?Ashur000 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Ashur000
Apart from the neutrality issues, most of the criticisms of the device are totally unsourced. Even if a particular editor has experience with the weapon, reliable 3rd party sources are required for any appraisal. The section has been tagged for over 2 years now. If you have any interest in any of the text, please provide sources immediately to avoid it being deleted. 212.67.168.234 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger of AFD content

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Y Merger complete. --Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since "pig" is mentioned, why not "black bitch", its other unflattering nickname? I'm sure there are sources out there for it.--172.191.204.188 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bursts

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article mentions firing 3-5 round bursts. I served in the army in 1971-2 and while I never carried a pig I did have to train and qualify with it. I distinctly remember being instructed to use 8-10 round bursts. During qualifying, many were trying a strategy of using short burst in an effort to save rounds for use on the farther range targets, but this strategy turns out to be sub-optimal: a short burst would often fail, requiring additional bursts while a 8-10 round burst would almost always down the target. Wschart (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Error in data presented

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the heading, History, the following information is presented at the end of the article's 8th paragraph:

The M60 had 846 MRBS and 1,669 MRBF, compared to the M240's 2,962 MRBS and 6,442 MRBF. As a result, the M240 was declared the winner and accepted into infantry service. Although the M60 was lighter, had better balance, was more controllable, and there were many in the inventory, it did not work reliably enough.[10]

The information in the first sentence does not support the conclusion in the second and third sentence. In fact it forms a basis for a completely opposite conclusion. Since the M240 was declared the winner, the data in the first sentence must be wrong and should be researched for a correction.

Signed: Eugene Clough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Clough (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, not really. The MAG will, on average, fire considerably more rounds between stoppages or failures than the M60 will; therefore it's the more reliable gun.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

m240 replacing the m60

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

actually the m249 replaced the automatic rifleman, with the m16a1 one man in each team was designated (AR) automatic rifleman and his rifle selector switch was allowed to be on full auto, with the switch to the m16a2 the the (AR) position was filled with the m249saw, there were still two m60 in each the platoon and the main guy in each m60 crew was designated machine gunner, for a total 2ea m249 per squad up to six, you will see army fm 7-70 showing infantry formations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.185.9 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on M60 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M60 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M60 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

American Bias?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Considering the fact that the MG-3 wasn't invented until 1960 and the FN MAG 1958 compared to the M60 being adopted in 1957. Is it really appropriate to say that "american bias" was the only reason the M60 was adopted by the US military? Literally nothing at the time was being fielded in 7.62x51mm and it would be a pretty dumb move to mess up your logistics by adopting a German MG in 7.92x57mm or that French AA-52 which was only being produced in their native cartridge at the time. And then still use rifles in 7.62x51mm like the M14. ThirstySexpert (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The MG3 is just a copy of the earlier MG1, which is a redesignation of the MG42. You could very easily re-chamber existing stocks of MG42s into 7.62mm, it probably wouldn't even take more than a change of barrel, and bolt head. At most it would mean you'd have to re-size a few operating components to make sure they'd line up when chammbering the round; a 7.62 is very similar to a 7.92, only with a a slightly shorter case. No harder than changing M1919s into 7.62s, which they did with extreme ease. No, I think bias is probably a great explanation. Same reason they insisted on adopting the M14 when the FAL was every bit as good or better. Refused to adopt the .276 round. Etc. It wouldn't have been politically kosher to adopt German guns at that point, even if it was okay to adopt barely-altered rehashes using the same technology. Actually openly adopting the MG42/MG1/MG3 would be admitting that the Germans have a better gun than you do, and didn't we just defeat those guys? Also, if the MG42 is such a great gun, why were we sending our boys into combat in 1942-45, and 1950-53 with the M1919 when we could have used the MG42 instead? Now, a decade later you're telling us you've decided to adopt it? It wouldn't have gone over well.64.223.165.28 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The M14 was chosen over the FAL because it's generally more accurate and reliable. If you're talking about .276 Pedersen is an American round. The MG42/MG3 had a mtbf of less than 500 rounds (The M1919 was more around 2,000 and the M60 900), was less accurate, heavier and ergonomically terrible to the point you couldn't carry it after firing or aim it without using the bipod. and the first MG1 in 7.62 wasn't adopted until 1958. The FN MAG on the other hand literally didn't exist in 1957 when the M60 was adopted. Claiming bias is really just a hairbrained conspiracy theory by the ignorant.
Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Terrible barrel change system with ridiculous asbestos glove"

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I get a little tired of seeing scorn heaped on the M-60 for this: "you mean they actually issued it with a cooking mitt to swap the barrels with? Wow, what a terrible gun!", while the MG42 is praised up and down as one of the best guns ever made...and it used the exact same barrel change system, right down to the asbestos glove. The M-60 copied it almost directly, right down to the same locking lever. Biggest difference is that you didn't have to slide it out to the right and to the rear, because there wasn't a barrel jacket for a muzzle booster in the way. The Germans didn't seem to find the asbestos glove a problem, since they used it with great effect through the whole war and never even tried to change the system: soldiers aren't SUPPOSED to loose their equipment. If they can loose the asbestos glove, they might as well loose the cleaning rod, or the tripod. Since it may happen occasionally, you keep spares in the equipment depots, but the men who will probably depend on the gun to save their own lives will probably do a pretty good job of keeping after the important pieces. I suspect most of the complaints about this are from peacetime soldiers in training, who couldn't be bothered to keep track of a silly glove. In any case, one can chance a hot barrel using wet cloth, leaves, etc. Even dry cloth. Anything to keep the heat from your hands for a few seconds.

Note that I say this all as it relates to the paragraph describing the "design flaws" of the M-60, not because I wanted to idly chat about the subject. I am just being unnecessarily long winded in explaining why I believe this is wrong, and accounts of this "terrible design flaw" are greatly exaggerated. I didn't delete the section because it is cited, I just changed it slightly, even though if the book that is cited is the one I think it is: "The Encyclopedia of Rifles and Machine Guns", it is full of mistakes and myths. I think that's the same book that claims "the M1 Carbine is the carbine version of the M1 Garand", among other things. 64.223.165.28 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a different book that said that about the M1 Carbine; "The Illustrated Directory of Guns and Weapons". The "Encyclopedia" isn't much better though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.165.28 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what else, the MG3 which is just a re-barreled MG42 is being dropped by the Germans and Danish, The Danish replaced it with the M60E6 and the Germans the HK121. This supposedly super-advanced Nazi machine gun was evaluated by every military power on the planet after ww2 and the only thing they took away was the feed system. And then it was never used in combat until Afghanistan and unsurprisingly the machine gun designed to be as cheap as possible sucks.
Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
People think of the MG42 as amazing for several reasons: It was super easy and cheap to make, it had an insanely fast rpm, it had a very simple and easy barrel change system, it had a unique disintegrating belt system, and it was light for an MMG. Some of these features were advanced, some were disadvantages. But what is most important about the MG42(and its predeccessors) is that it pioneered the GPMG.
But regardless, the MG42 was made and used for a completely different war than those of today. So what was coveted in WWII, is archaic today anyway. In any case, I think the MG42's effect was phschological as well as physical. The sound of "Hitler's buzzsaw" was quite scary to allied soldiers.Blamazon (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Asbestos Glove is Fake news

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found a training video for the M60 from the Army on youtube. They changed the barrel by using the Bipod as a grip. No mention of an asbestos glove.

Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M60_machine_gun/Archive_1&oldid=1021999729"