In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Was the M60 undependable?
Workingzombie
Member Posts: 235 ✭✭✭
I've read some gun articles recently that stated the M60 MG
was trouble prone and unrelible in the field. Any vets here who
can comment on this weapon?
was trouble prone and unrelible in the field. Any vets here who
can comment on this weapon?
Comments
Early production runs of M60 machine guns were also very fragile, as some critical parts, such as the receiver cover and feed tray were made from very thin sheet metal stampings and very prone to becoming bent or broken; heavier parts were eventually forthcoming, after 1970. Early production M60s also had driving spring guides, and operating rods that were too skinny and gas pistons that were too narrow behind the piston head in an attempt to save weight; this made them very prone to bending and breakage (some suggested at the time that metallurgical problems also played a part, always a problem when weapons are made by the lowest bidder), but after 1970 a slightly heavier part was designed and slowly put into the supply chain. US Marines especially despised the M60 and in many units they held onto their BARs until 1967-68. Weight was reduced somewhat and reliability was improved slightly in the M60E3; the M60E3 variant was designed in the mid 1980s for the US Marine Corps. Users also complained about the quickly-overheating barrel. After approximately 200 rounds had been fired within one minute, the barrel had to be removed and replaced. Unfortunately, this occurred most often during combat situations. In order to replace the barrel, a crewman had to don heat-resistant asbestos mittens, further slowing down the process. In the M60E3 variant, this problem only got worse as the previous 200 rounds per minute limit was reduced to 100 rounds per minute due to the lighter barrel, though the M60E3's barrel has a wire and plastic handle near the breech end and can theoretically be changed safely without the asbestos mittens.
Kim- I'm not sure if that is supposed to represent the opinions of actual members of F/2/9, but I have friends that were in 2/9 in 1966,67,68&69. None of them complained about the problems listed in the c&p. the loading/receiver cover is not moved except to load the gun, which is generally done in a calm situation, prior to leaving the compound or getting ready for a night on guard. I know no one that "donned the asbestos glove" except the armorer when changing the barrel out, which only took a few seconds, and fire discipline prevented firing 200 rounds in less than 60 seconds. So I would conclude that the posting is unreliable, not the gun.
Hi Ray B. I do not know if the site is that of Fox members, either. There was, indeed, problems with the M-60, though, but I do not ever recall them being nearly as bad as that of the M-16. And, those notes in relation to the M-60 as listed on the link seem to ring-a-bell to some extent. Also, the note regarding that the Army never liked the M-60 is significant as well. I do believe that some of the dislike of the M-60 came from the change-over, and the machine gunners, and other old timers were fond of their old pieces, and did not particualrly like the familarization aspects the newer one presented. I'm sure that all of the problems with the M-60 are clearly documented and archived if one wants to do the research.
My days in the infantry ended in June of 1963. I was the 1st Squad Leader of the 2nd Paltoon in Mike 3/4 at the time. Our Company turned in their BARs and M1s in exchange for M14s in August of 1962. I did keep my M1 as this was allowed for Battalion Rifle Team members. Back then our T/0 machineguns were the old Browning 1919 (Light 30s). One of our machine gunners, Big John, stood 6'7 and weighed 235...he used a strap to carry his, and would fire it from the hip while on the move. He could run with the best carrying this big weapon, too, and I do mean run! [:)]
You could really have fun with whomever put the 2/9 site together, huh? I don't see what's odd about getting the M-14s in August of 1962. Is it odd that the Marine Corps issued you an M-14 in recruit training in June of 1962? The Marine Corps did not issue the M-14s to all of its units and training commands on the same day of the same month of the same year...or, if they did, would that be considered odd, too? When did you join Fox 2/9? Was it one of your first units?
Another point to consider: In March of 1961 Marines leaving boot camp transfered with their M1 to their new duty stations. If this were the case when you graduated from boot camp, and I am not saying it was, then the fact that boots who began training with the M-14 in June of 1962, as you say you did, would not have to be FAMMED by the NCOs in their new units with a new weapon, nor would it present a logistical lash up for thousands of newbies having to exchange old weapons for newer ones at the battalion supply rooms.
You could really have fun with whomever put the 2/9 site together, huh? I don't see what's odd about getting the M-14s in August of 1962. Is it odd that the Marine Corps issued you an M-14 in recruit training in June of 1962? The Marine Corps did not issue the M-14s to all of its units and training commands on the same day of the same month of the same year...or, if they did, would that be considered odd, too? When did you join Fox 2/9? Was it one of your first units?
I think it is odd that recruits would get the M14 before regular line companies, especially when they then sent us through ITR with the M1. I was transferred from 1/9 to 2/9 in August 1965.
The only problems I saw with an M-60 were ones the gunner caused by overheating the barrel,but sometimes you had no choice.There may have been some problems with early models(I was in 70-71)but I never heard of them.I do remember our M-60 was manufactured by Saco-Lowell,a textile machery company.
I was not around the M-60 in an infantry unit. And, I do not remember what the details of the problems with the M-60 were, but they did exist, one might have been the barrel problem as has been noted. I do not know. I do know they were corrected. This is my personal knowledge of the M-60 in relation to Workingzombie's query.
A problem would be when the M60 has some characteristic that is less effective than some other system, which in this case is the Browning light 30. I don't know where he got it, but the Comm Top had a light 30 on a pole mount in the back of his PC. It's use was limited to whatever shooting was necessary from the truck. While the rate of fire was about the same as the M60, the barrel was heavier and would take a few more rounds to heat it up, but when it did get hot it was difficult to cool and changing out was not really an option, particularly since the new barrel required headspacing, which was done by counting clicks from tight. Improper headspace would result in a gun that either wouldn't fire, or wouldn't fire twice without clearing. So compared to the BL30 the M60 was much more portable, was designed to be carried and fired from offhand position, and when the barrel did heat up, it could be quickly and easily changed. Clearly the M60 was not the machined work of art that the Browning was, but in terms of combat effectiveness and firepower, the M60 would win on all counts.
I agree with you Ray. On the whole, the M-60 was certainly an improvement over the light 30 due to its portability and other characteristics. It would be interesting to know, though, just how frequently the barrels of the light 30 needed to be changed out as compared to the M-60.
anyone ever fire one off with the gun open?
Former Member U.S. Navy Shooting Team
Former NSSA All American
Navy Distinguished Pistol Shot
MO, CT, VA.
I loved the M-60 even tho I cussed the hell out of that 27 pound monster at times. Never hada problem with stoppages as long as I used a good dose of LSA to keep her going. Only problem Iever had was ONCE. The leaf spring that swiveled on one pin and latched on the other of the trigger housing group came off. Then the trigger housing group fell off my weapon. I dontthink I need to go intowhathappened next OFFICE HOURS for yours truly. In the end it was guessed or determined lol that the spring was either worn out or placed upside down. Did anyof yall ever have a leafspring problem while carrying the M-60?????
After 'Nam, I finished out my enlistment with an aircraft weapons evaluation team at Ft. Bragg, NC where everyone...pilots and aircrew...had logged actual combat flight time. Neither in 'Nam nor at Bragg can I recall any serious (or repetitive) complaints about the M-60's reliability. Matter of fact, most of us were pretty damned pleased with it...except for one guy who'd done a tour in Europe with some sort of NATO combined forces group and felt the West German MG3 (an updated MG42) was the greatest thing since sliced bread!
All in all, so long as it was properly maintained, the M-60 in 'Nam was as solid and reliable a weapon as anything available at the time...and, at least, ten times as "dependable" as the M-16A1s we were saddled with as "secondary weapons."
[img][/img]
"One of the biggest M60 critics is a guy named Peter G. Kokalis."... sounds like one of those "I ain't been there or done that, but..."
Kokalis is probably one of the most authoritive experts on small arms and automatic weapons around. The M60 was great, but it wasn't the best LMG....Other military forces had some mighty fine LMG.
M-14 questions.
The USMC would/will not transfere you to new outfit with your weapon! you turn it in, draw another one.
You shoot what you train with.
Grinder close order was with the M-14.MCRD 1964
Qualified with the M-14,
Trained with M-14
carried the M-14 in VN 65-66
finished my 4years with the M-14 1968.
I sure liked them. If it ever broke, it makes a hell of a club. you cant say that bout the AR's [:D]
(2) Received an Honorable Discharge (3) Received a Purple Heart- then and only then will he know what it is like to put our troops in Harm's Way- and to do that with "at the cheapest price for equipment" like we have seen since Korea is a courts-martial offense, in this old Gunny's opinion. I'm old school Corps, guess that shows, huh??
The feed mechanism was based on German WWII MG-42. It was pretty good and I thought the addition of the side tray, to hang soft pouches on, was a big improvement. The only time I had a problem was when I test fired a couple of hundred rounds that had been submerged in water inside a minigun ammo can (2000 round can if I remember correctly). Some of the links were so rusted that they had to be broken free. I remember really being impressed with how I was able to rip through the crap with only a couple of misfires.
It was heavy and could get tangled up in the "wait-a-minute" vines because of the design of the barrel and gas piston.
I shortened the weapon by cutting the barrel back, moving the gas piston back a couple of inches and then modified the operating rod, receiver and spring to accommodate the change. I used a metal or plastic boot (because of the buffer, I found the M60 very comfortable to fire from the shoulder even without the standard shoulder stock), from helicopter external M-60's and made a vertical foregrip (not shown in video because I was testing), because the standard grip would no longer fit as a result of the heavy modification. Very effective weapon and ended up being a tad shorter than AK-47. On the negative, because of the shorter barrel, it had a heck of a blast because of burning gases leaving the shortened barrel.
Sample video below:
[url][/url]
RVN 70 -71 Pleiku