FN Herstal

U.S. Ordnance M60E6 Wins Royal Danish Army GPMG Replacement Program

The Royal Danish Army recently announced it has selected the U.S. Ordnance M60E6 as its new General Purpose Machine Gun through its GPMG Replacement Program, the trials for which have been held since last year.

m60e6

The M60E6 was one of two finalists in the program, along the HK121. The M60E6 was chosen for the benefits it holds over the current M/62 MG3 which has been in use with the Danish Army since 1962:

– Weighs 9.35 kg, approx. 3 kg lighter than the M/62, with better weight distribution
– Better control of alternative shot positions, such as kneeling and standing
– Lower ROF of 550 RPM when compared with the M/62’s 1200 RPM, which improves shooter accuracy, reduces ammunition consumption, and significantly minimizes the risk of collateral damage
– Single shot capability
– Reduced recoil
– Picatinny rails allows for the addition of accessories such as tactical lights, lasers, etc.
– Stable adjustable stand
– Fast barrel change is possible without the use of gloves

Approximately 700 LMGs have been purchased, which are scheduled for delivery starting late 2014. Additionally, the Danish Army is also in the process of obtaining an optics and sensor package for the new LMG, including unspecified daylight optics, thermal optics, red dot optics, tactical lights, tactical lasers, and laser range finders. This package is expected to be delivered starting 2015.

www.usord.com/weapons/m60e6

Hat tip: Krigeren.dk

Tags: ,

41 Responses to “U.S. Ordnance M60E6 Wins Royal Danish Army GPMG Replacement Program”

  1. DB says:

    Worst machinegun ever, next to the WWI French Chauchat. There is a reason the US finally transitioned to the 50 year old FN MAG. I was in the USMC when we went from the M-60 (piece of crap) to the M60-E3 (even crappier). Tip to the Danes: they only work when they’re brand new. And don’t talk to me about the SEALs using them for so many years. They totally rebuilt them after every few thousand rounds, and they don’t use them now.

    • SSD says:

      I was pretty shocked by this as well. FN MAG is a great machine but then again, the M60 is the MG3’s cousin.

      • pbla4024 says:

        Cousin? Only heavily modified belt feed came from MG 42, the rest was based on FG 42, right?

        • SSD says:

          Yeah cousins, they share some DNA.

          • Kirk says:

            “Some DNA…”. Yeah, if you consider it mutated, radiation-damaged DNA, I guess…

            The two key features the M60 “borrows” from the MG42 were the feed tray cover, and the pistol grip/trigger assembly. Both were well-thought out and carefully designed on the MG42. The American interpretation? Basically, they look like they were handed off to a retarded chimp, who was told to copy them.

            Key things that the US missed from the German design: The feed tray cover on the M60 could only be closed with the bolt to the rear, while on the MG42, the designers realized that in the heat of combat, such things didn’t always happen. So, MG42, if you close it after the bolt slams forward, the operating stud will still work the feed mechanism. Think this shit doesn’t matter? Try reloading a damn M60 when the shit hits the fan, and see what happens when your worn-out sear fails to keep the bolt back when you jostle the weapon, reloading it. Stupid, stupid, stupid–And, the clear result of copying without understanding.

            Then, there’s the fucking trigger/sear assembly. Essentially, copied off the MG42, only… They left off the cute little spring-loaded secondary sear that prevents the weapon from having the sear notch on the operating rod worn out when PVT Dumbass doesn’t cleanly release the trigger after firing a burst. Which drastically increases the wear on both parts, and contributes to the hair-trigger issue mentioned over the fucking feed-tray cover being a major problem.

            Add in the near-infinite number of ways you can put the thing back together with backwards parts, and still be left thinking you have a functional weapon, along with a whole host of other fucking stupidities, and you have a weapon that should have led to the wholesale slaughter of anyone involved in its procurement as a service to the race. Those stupid fuckers should never have been allowed to breed, and they should have been expunged from the procurement system. Only thing is, they’re still there, and still running things through having chosen their successors.

            Let’s not even mention the number of things that the Germans did to fix issues with both the MG42 and the FG42, and which were completely ignored by the copyists who stole those features. It’s like they only looked at the first few examples to come out of the factory, and never went to look at what issues the Germans found with the designs in combat.

            Any weapon that has parts that can be put in backwards, and still assembled, and which requires the issue of safety wire and wire-tying pliers simply in order to keep the fucking gas system from coming apart while in use…? The motherfucker should never have been adopted, and the jackasses who foisted this POS off on American Soldiers should have done hard time in some dark prison, somewhere, getting raped anally every morning, noon, and night.

            When I was a company armorer, well over 90% of my time was spent trying to keep these fucking POS weapons operational. When I was an M60 gunner in Germany, I took a brand-new one out of the wrapper from SACO/Maremont the week before a major FTX, took it to the field, babied it through range qualifications, and after the rest of the weapons in the battalion went down, we fired the lion’s share of the gun crews through my company’s weapons. My gun did something slightly north of 10,000-15,000 rounds, all well within the firing rates specified in the manual, and it was coded out for receiver wear when we got back. The fucking things should have been treated like the LAWS, as expendable ammunition items. Get the gun, 10,000 rounds, and when you’re done with the ammo, ditch the gun with a thermite grenade over the chamber. After 10,000 rounds, in my experience, the receivers were shot the fuck out.

            Can you tell I hate the M60? Does it sound like I have an issue with it? Why, yes, you’re absolutely right on both counts. Only good thing on that weapon was the fucking barrel, which is also the only mass-produced Stellite medium machine gun barrel ever issued. World-wide. Even FN couldn’t get those into production economically. Too bad it was on such a shitty weapon, otherwise.

            • SSD says:

              I hate the 60 as well for all of the reasons you do, feed tray cover, bailing wire and the ability to put it together backward. I am also unhappy with its overall reliability. But, like it or not, the design takes elements from the MG42.

              • Kirk says:

                The point I was making was that the features they took weren’t copied properly. I can’t even think of a good analogy–It was like they looked at the MG42 and just sketched it in, without looking at why the Germans did what they did. Or, for that matter, digging into the voluminous German documentation of the design modifications that they made in course of the weapon’s service life.

                The US was notoriously blind to German MG technology and tactical usages. They looked at the MG34 and MG42, and managed to completely miss that they were part of a unified system of tactical thought that was completely opposite of what we were doing. Things like the highly sophisticated tripods and periscopic sights that allowed the German MG crews to stay below the line of sight were completely ignored. We copied some of the forms, but none of the real substance.

                Read the WWII intel reports on the weapons. It becomes very apparent that our tech intel guys never “got” the first thing about what the Germans were doing, or how they did it. Even with good translations of the German doctrine available, and the clear evidence of how much havoc German machine gun crews were wreaking on our ranks, we continually kept looking at the German system as though it were ours, and evaluated the weapons by how well they would have fit into our tactical concepts.

                The deeper you dig, the more horrors you uncover. There’s a reason we ignored the implications of the assault rifle until we started losing engagements in the jungles of Vietnam, and it’s mostly down to willful blindness and arrogance on the part of the men in charge.

            • Steve Helzer says:

              Kirk,

              The Danish program is for the US Ordnance M60E6 not the old M60 you are familiar with.
              With your extensive experience I’m sure you will then recognize how addressing each of points has resulted in the battle tested AND IMPROVED M60E6.

              Here is a list of the issues we have addressed that I have culled out of your comments above

              1. On the M60E6 the weapon can be loaded and top cover opened and closed with the bolt forward or with the weapon charged and bolt to rear. In addition we redesigned the feed cam so the system has 30% improved belt pull to overcome miss aligned ammo, debris in the links, and twisted belts. In fact we test our M60E6 models to the same belt pull standard as the US M240.
              2. Our M60E6 features and improved OPERATING ROD and TRIGGER to PVT Dumbass proof the system
              3. We corrected several areas where the system could be assembled incorrectly
              a. Soldier Proof Reversible gas piston
              b. Simplified gas system with fewer parts and eliminated they need for safety wire
              c. Trigger retaining pin can only be inserted from the RIGHT correct side
              d. I joined US Ordnance after a 15 year carrier in the technology sector so I was not “chosen to be anyone’s successors”
              4. We have an extensive collections of transferable machine guns in our reference library and we are constantly going back to these models to check on field expedient improvements that were implemented. We also have 14 years of continuous user feedback regarding the systems we supply around the globe.
              5. Likely unknown to you as the Company Armorer was an extensive list of Product Improvement Programs (PIP) that occurred in the late 1970s and 1980 on the M60. Some were obvious like the change from triple wire drive spring to the single wire and the change to double sear notch instead of one (see PVT Dumbass again).
              a. One such improvement that had little external evidence was a change in the receiver assembly. Certain chamfers in the receiver channel were redesigned and the riveting procedure was changed. This did away with most of the receiver stretch you reference.
              b. On our M60E4, E6 and M60D Enhanced models our channels our heat treated to modern standards and receiver stretch is an issue I have never seen in my 12 years at US Ordnance.
              6. Our system still has the stellite barrel which you agree is a great feature.

              Not mentioned in you comment but also addressed are the following improvements.
              1. Improved Barrel Design
              a. Improved bird cage flash hider
              b. Improved CAM PATH in barrel socket to address barrel/bolt issue of the original M60
              c. Carry handle moved to barrel to facilitate barrel changes without heat mitten
              d. Adjustable front sights to allow for zeroing primary and spare barrel
              e. Stellite lined for one of the longest lasting barrels in the industry
              f. Improved accuracy to facilitate use of optics and lasers
              2. Improved one-hand operated bipod moved from barrel to receiver.
              a. Lightens load as machine gunner is not carrying second bipod on spare barrel
              b. Keep weapon on target and off ground during barrel changed
              c. Unlike E3 bipod ours is simple, strong and designed with interchangeable legs
              d. Allows for a more natural pivot point for the weapon system
              3. M1913 Rail handguard
              a. Open at top to allow unrestricted access for barrel changes
              b. Rails for mounting lasers and grips
              c. Positive locking system to maintain zero of lasers
              4. Receiver mounted bandolier bracket (ammo hanger)
              a. This isolated the ammunition hanger from the feed tray and provides a stable mounting point
              b. When operator lifts feed tray to confirm chamber clear it does not dump his ammo like on previous model
              5. M1913 Rail Top Cover
              a. M1913 rail for mounting optics, thermal and sensors without additional brackets
              b. Improved feed cam with 30% improved belt pull and allow for ability to load the weapon in multiple conditions. Bolt forward or to the rear.
              c. Eliminates the old tin cover design that dented and wore thru
              6. Improved buttstock
              a. Lighter and stronger
              b. More ergonomic
              c. Does not detach due to wear like the older models
              7. Trigger Group
              a. Improved trigger re-design to facilitate use of gloves
              b. Improved retaining system with positive lock like top cover.
              i. Replaces flat spring design that was problematic with the old M60
              c. Trigger Housing redesigned to prevent incorrect assembly of the trigger pin
              d. Reinforced sections to prevent breakage when using in WINTER/NBC mode with heavy gloves
              e. Ergonomic grip with cargo space

              US Ordnance supplies M2HB weapons to the US Military and produce our version of the M240/Mag58 for NATO and foreign customers.
              Both of these systems have Stellite lined barrels as well. We do not limit our improvements to just our M60 systems and have figured out how to economically incorporate these into our M240 product line.

              Like my offer to DB you also have an open invitation to visit us in Reno Nevada, see our operations, and test fire our equipment.

              BR, Steve Helzer, Sales and Marketing Vice President, US Ordnance

              • dave says:

                I have one of the original M60 E3 in unfortunately semi auto only, but nevertheless it runs great no problems ever and back when US Ord handled semi autos still they (Curtis) did some great upgrades to my American Arms/Delta M60E3 for free very nice to deal with.

    • Steve Helzer says:

      DB,

      First, thank you for your service in the USMC.

      I am going to respond to your post as US Ordnance Sales and Marketing Vice President. US Ordnance M60E4 and E6 models are a complete overhaul from the M60, M60E3 and even the Mk43 Mod 0 models you are familiar with from your days in the Marines. When we took over manufacturing the M60 line in 2000 from Saco Defense our first design initiatives focused on product improvements based on historical soldier and combat data. For each fact based negative point outlined on the M60 model I can point to an improvement on our current model. The long service history of the M60 and our focus on improvement is why our system out-performed the competition in the Danish Tender

      If you are ever in Reno Nevada I invite you to visit our manufacturing facility and experience first-hand our products. We also participate in several live fire events around the country each year and we always bring a large supply of ammo as we encourage evaluators to really torture test our products. You will be pleasantly surprised as our systems do not require rebuild after only several thousand rounds.

      BR, Steve Helzer, Sales and Marketing Vice President

    • Paul says:

      what u are wrong the m60 is great much better than the m240 i really dont like m240 and i prefer the m60e6 or m60e4

    • Michael says:

      As an owner of a transferable M60 that was converted to E4, and now E6, I can tell you that this is not your old M60 anymore. The thing is light for what it is, short in length, and could be carried comfortably for long distances, and it’s damn reliable. Did I mention it’s light?

  2. Mobious says:

    “significantly minimizes the risk of collateral damage” is not what comes to mind when I think MACHINE GUN

  3. Sgt E says:

    LMG? I thought the 60 qualified as a medium MG.

  4. Kirk says:

    SGT E–The roles are different. A medium MG is one that is intended to be run off a tripod, for sustained fire. If you don’t issue the tripod, and it’s intended to be fired off a bipod alone, it’s an LMG.

    On behalf of America, I want to apologize to the Danes. Especially their armorers, because once the first few thousand rounds have gone through these fucking things, they’re going to find out why the fuck I did an hours-long “happy dance” the day I turned my unit’s M60s in for the M240. These things are irretrievably bad, and unless they completely redesign the receivers so that they’re not built up out of lightweight steel stampings and half-ass rivets, they’re going to have wear issues. The litany of horrible design features on the M60 goes on for pages, and I don’t think you could fix the fucking thing without basically pulling the only good thing about it, the Stellite barrel, and wrapping a whole new gun around it.

    Denmark, I am so sorry. I can only assume that someone took children hostages, or something…

    • Bang says:

      Apollogy accepted. The people most at fault is the Danish procurement officials that chose this, most likely due to cost and less than 1 Kg of weight for a weapon system whose weight lies primarily in the ammunition.

    • Sgt E says:

      Makes sense.

      Thanks, Kirk.

    • Steve Helzer says:

      US Ordnance was one of 6 companies invited to tender, 4 including US Ordnance submitted bids, 3 were then accepted for trails and US Ordnance M60E6 was selected as the winner. Your comment regarding the Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistic Organization (DALO) selection process while likely intended as humorous does DALO an incredible disservice. This is one of the most professional and thorough groups I have work with and your comment of “children taken hostage” as a basis of their decision is inappropriate.

      Steve Helzer, Sales and Marketing Vice President, US Ordnance

  5. Matt says:

    How many of you guys have any experience with US Ordnance M60 variants? Because you’ve might be surprised after all. Danes had all the choices available – HK, FN… And it is rather silly to assume that they don’t know their craft.

    • Kirk says:

      Look, the key thing that’s wrong with that weapon is the inherent design of the receiver. That hasn’t changed, and can’t, not without a total redesign. US Ordnance hasn’t changed that. The stamped sheet metal that the receiver is built up out of is too thin, and too prone to stretching. You weld it together, the welds crack because the metal underneath is moving, you rivet it together, and the rivet holes stretch, the rivets loosen, and hey, presto–You need a new receiver.

      The only reason those things have even a slightly positive reputation among Vietnam vets is because the previous weapon in that role was even worse–The M1919A6. And, because the system supporting the then-new M60 was robust, and they were replacing the damn things routinely. This is something I didn’t know during much of my tenure, as an armorer and Soldier, but I found out from talks with a retired WO4 who’d been in Ordnance from before Vietnam. Apparently, they were issuing the M60 like it was an expendable item–You’d come in from patrol, turn the crew-served weapons in to the supply room, and they’d call in a team that the Ordnance guys kept on call to go gauge the weapons. His estimate, and I trust it because he was there running this shit, was that the average number of operations an M60 survived was around three. At that point, they’d be coded out. A lot of the times, the gunners never knew they were carrying new weapons.

      If you read the memoirs, the M60 failed at a massive rate. Stan Goff, who wrote about his experiences as an M60 gunner in the oral history “Bloods”, describes having his gun literally fall apart in the middle of firefight, due to the receiver stretching and the rivets loosening. He’s not the only one, either–I did a bunch of interviews with Vietnam vets back in the day, and I’d always ask about the M60, because I could never figure out why they loved the damn thing, and it had been such an utter POS for me. There were always stories of it failing, and them having brand-new weapons dropped off in the middle of missions by helicopter. One guy described having gone through two guns, and getting a third air-dropped in the middle of an engagement with a VC basecamp.

      The M60 was a mid-century Chauchat. Period. Fixing it? When they start building the receivers out of monolithic castings or forgings, I might start to believe they were serious. The E6 still has that built-up out of tinfoil receiver the original model had, with a couple of minor tweaks applied. Which amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

      • SSD says:

        Awesome!

      • Reseremb says:

        Sir, I really fucking enjoyed your comments in this post, would love to read more about the M60s and the transition to M240.

        We are going to really really miss the MG3 in Spain, the stupid company who still had the presses and molds for parts recently closed the line, and no one is looking into upgrading the gun (and guys like Spuhr sure can bring this kind of weapons to a modern standard).

    • Stan says:

      To answer your question I’d guess none of them have handled the US Ordnance gun. They all seem to be stuck on their memories of what they should have done better in Vietnam. Kinds of reminds me of those folks that argue against the M4 by citing the problems the M16 had in SEA the the 1960’s like nothing has changes since then.

      • Kirk says:

        You want to sell a product-improved version of an historically awful gun, you’d better do a damn good job of addressing the issues that the veterans who handled the older models discovered through bad experience. I see none of that in these “new, improved US Ordnance” versions.

        The fundamentals of the weapon are still there. They’re advertising complete parts interchange with the older guns, which tells me that the same issues in the op rod/bolt interface still have to be there, and the receiver structure is still the same built-up out of tinfoil bullshit that made maintaining the guns over the long haul such a fucking nightmare.

        It looks like they have addressed some of the issues, namely the new feed tray cover and pistol grip assembly. Great. Those were only two of the areas that needed attention, along with the gas system.

        The fundamentals of the M60 are what suck. I honestly couldn’t tell you why the goddamn things want to beat themselves to death. All I know is that they’re maintenance nightmares in that regard, and that without significant changes to the basic parts configuration, the most you’re going to accomplish is minimizing the wear. There is something fundamentally fucked up with the M60 design, or those parts wouldn’t be peening themselves to death in routine use–And I’ve seen that same pattern of wear in every M60 variation I’ve ever examined, from the museum examples that served in Vietnam, to the latest Marine E4 models.

        Oddly enough, the FG42s that I’ve torn down, some of which had ungodly amounts of ammunition run through them over the years, showed no signs of such excessive wear on the op rod towers and bolt lugs. This tells me that someone, somehow, fucked up the basic design, and if the parts still interchange, then the same issues have to still be present. Either that, or they’ve figured out how to mass-produce some seriously improved materials technology, which I just don’t see as being affordable.

        I’ll venture to predict that the Danes are going to regret this procurement decision, and before the decade is up.

        The M60 belongs in a museum display of “how not to do things” for weapons designers. Aside from the barrels, that is.

  6. SGT Per says:

    Being a leader of an electronics and armorer team in the Danish army I was pleased to know that we are changing the worn out M62 (MG42) … now to see what you write about the receivers makes me worry once again…… I really hope we will be able to keep it shooting straight :-)

    • Kirk says:

      Remember this one thing: It’s a disposable weapon. This is not a MAG-58 where you buy a set, and your grandkids will still be issued them when they report for service. There’s a lifespan to these things, and it’s not measured in hundreds of thousands of rounds, based on my experience. Unless they’ve really worked some magic with the metallurgy, those tinfoil receivers that make them so light are going to do what they do, and stretch under the stress of firing them. That causes the welds to break where the trunnions are welded on (said welds were a modification applied late in the service life for ours, btw…) and the rivets will inevitably loosen up. Keep an eye on those things, and be prepared to code out and buy new receivers like clockwork.

      You guys didn’t buy a handkerchief, you bought kleenex. Best make sure you’ve got a bunch of extra boxes, because trying to keep stretched-out guns in service is a fool’s game. I’ve actually had cases where the idiots above direct support maintenance refused to code out a weapon that had roughly 7.5mm of play at the rear trunnion assembly, and had that same weapon spontaneously self-disassemble while being fired on a range. When they’re worn, they’re worn, and no amount of rivet-staking is going to save the day.

      The other thing? Don’t use a light, high-viscosity lubricant. You need a heavy oil or even a grease everywhere the parts impact. Key locations are the upper bolt lug, the tower that the bolt rides on, and the sear notches. Grease the shit out of where the tower connects to the bolt, and make sure the gunners know to do that. You need to provide a cushion for those parts when they slam together.

      The other fun thing about that built-up from tinfoil receiver? Dirt. You can’t clean the damn thing, and dirt gets in between the various bits and bobs that make up the receiver. You’ll think it’s nice and tight, because all that dirt is in there tightening things up, but as soon as the gun is soaking wet out in the field, and that dirt washes out, all of a sudden it loosens up. I took a weapon that passed the gauging tests we used to have to do, dumped it into a parts cleaning tank, and when all the dirt was finally out from in between the parts of the receiver, it no longer passed. You could literally take the damn thing and hold it between two hands, twisting, and get like 3-4 millimeters of play between the front and rear trunnion blocks. At that point, you’ve got good reason to take the damn thing over to depot, and have them try to fix it. About seven times out of ten, you’re getting a new gun.

      If you’ve got any role in parts procurement planning, figure on about one receiver for every 10,000-15,000 rounds fired. The rest of the parts will give you maybe three times that lifespan, but they’ll have to be watched carefully and replaced as needed.

      Remember: Kleenex. Not a handkerchief.

  7. Mike Nomad says:

    Uh…Wow. I had no idea the M60 was such a POS. I fired one a few times, and certainly never had to service one. Thank Athena and Mars that I never had to depend on one.

    From this excellent thread, I now understand some behaviors of our GMs that I had originally put down to them just being odd and bitchy. Those. Poor. Guys.

  8. Mike Nomad says:

    Uh…Wow. I had no idea the M60 was such a POS. I fired one a few times, and certainly never had to service one. Thank Athena and Mars that I never had to depend on one.

    From this excellent thread, I now understand some behaviors of our GMs that I had originally put down to them just being odd and bitchy. Those. Poor. Guys.

  9. Kirk says:

    The other thing that killed the M60 was the conversion from LSA and RBC to Break-Free CLP in the early 1980s.

    There are three key areas for peening and wear in the weapon: The upper bolt lug, the tower that rises from the operating rod up to the bolt, and the sear. Once we went to CLP, the wear rates and the amount of peening I had to deal with went up exponentially. The reason why didn’t dawn on me until much later, because I just didn’t make the connection. The heavier LSA lubricant served as a cushion between the parts, and prevented a lot of the wear that stemmed from those parts slamming together–Which is another example of piss-poor design. When you have to issue a set of stones to dress worn and peened surfaces in your weapon, that might be a capital-S Sign that you’ve screwed up somewhere along the line with your basic mechanical design. The M60 was chock full of these issues–On receivers that had seen a lot of use, you’d even find signs of peening and wear on the slots that the pistol grip/sear locked into.

    If you didn’t pay close attention to these things as an armorer, the peening would build up to the point where the gunners were getting cuts and metal splinters in their hands just from breaking their weapons down for cleaning.

    With Break-Free CLP, if I’d let a weapon fire a couple of thousand rounds without attending to it with the stones, I’d almost have to break out the Dremel in order to get the requisite metal removed. By comparison? Similarly contacting surfaces in my brand-new M240s barely had the finish worn off them after 10-20,000 rounds downrange.

    The M60 is a horrible, horrible design. I don’t know what the Germans did with the FG42, but even some of the most abused examples I ever handled did not have wear patterns like the M60s did. Better tempering? Face hardening of the parts where the contacts were made between them? I don’t honestly know, but all of the FG42s I ever got to personally examine, including some that saw serious abuse in the war, did not have that kind of wear. The designers got something wrong with the balance and tolerances of that weapon, and I don’t know what it was.

    My take on things is that if you disassemble a weapon after a few thousand rounds, and find that the armorer needs to spend a couple of hours cleaning things up with metal-working tools, you’ve done something very wrong with the basic design. If you lube an M60 with CLP, it will beat itself to death in very short order. If you lube it with LSA, it will last somewhat longer, but those inherent design flaws are still eating that poor thing alive.

    Seriously–An M240 with 25,000 rounds through it is nicely broken-in. An M60 with 25,000 rounds through it is a statistical anomaly that should have been coded out around 15,000, at best.

    • Mike Nomad says:

      Awesome. The transition you mention happened when I was on active duty. I remember seeing Break-Free CLP for the first time, how everybody really liked it, and how our GMs horded it like gold. The odd behavior and bitchyness I mentioned showed up a little while later.

      • Kirk says:

        I think the whole Break-Free CLP package was optimized for the M16, and it was also meant to reduce the number of different lubes/cleaners we had to keep on hand. The idea works with the M16, but it was disastrous for the machine guns. When the MK19 made it into general issue, they had to bring back LSA, and specifically tell us that we weren’t to use Break-Free for anything other than cleaning purposes. When I asked why, the answer I got was that whole “cushioning effect between parts” thing–And, that’s when the light went on in reference to the M60.

        I don’t give a damn what anyone says–When you have to rely on the lubricant to keep your weapon from beating itself to death on the contact surfaces of its mechanism, you’ve done something wrong with the design. Really, really wrong. Chauchat wrong. M60 wrong…

        And, when people are using your design as a metric for fuck-upedness? Learn what you did, put the poor thing out of its misery, and build something that fucking works from the lessons you learn. Don’t try to market “fixed” iterations of the same basic crap design to capitalize on your foolish purchase of IP that should have been left in a museum of “Things small arms designers shouldn’t do…”.

    • Kirk says:

      OK, Denmark: What’s the deal with putting the orange safety vests on the pop-up targets? Is this some kind of subtle joke about the US propensity for having the troops wear the day-glo PT belts around the FOBs in Afghanistan? Are you preparing your guys for the day when you finally take advantage of that bit of idiocy, staging a Viking raid on our FOBs?

      :)

      Suddenly, I’m wondering if I should feel so bad about y’all picking the M60.

      The above is a joke, folks… But, seriously, Denmark? WTF is with those bright orange safety vests on the targets? Isn’t that kinda, y’know… Cheating?

      • Bronx says:

        Hahaha – I hadn’t noticed that on the first viewing. 😀 I’ve never seen that over here. I’m guessing that they might be doing it to test the weapon’s accuracy, not the shooter’s vision.

  10. seans says:

    As a guy who has got to use the M60(MK43), and absolutely loved it, I got to say the M60 is got to be one of the worst GPMG ever. Its got one and only one use and that is for SOF(not that the infantry don’t have a use for it but more the money to support it). For a guy who is running the gun solo and is running and gunning, its amazing. But it just doesn’t have a long shelf life. You need to keep a good round count on them and have good support set up for it. I feel it gets almost the same rep as the 48s get these days with people comparing it to the 240.

    • Kirk says:

      Within it’s limitations, I’d have to agree. But, those limitations basically mean the gun is effectively useless as a general-issue GPMG.

      Support it, spend the money on replacing parts, and you’ve got a reasonably serviceable weapon. But, the light weight that attracted you to it comes with a heavy price in terms of longevity and durability.

      Ergonomically, they got a lot of things right. Mechanically? Don’t make me laugh… Service life? Are you kidding me?

      Keep remembering that the M60-series weapons are basically Kleenex, and treat them as such. They’re expendable items, like munitions. Fire X number of rounds, shitcan it. They’re not like the MG3 or MAG-58, where the damn service life is measured in generations. Most emphatically not…

  11. andrew says:

    Too funny. I was in a weapons squad when we transitioned from the 60 to the 240B with the bulk of my years with the 60. What a night and day difference. Of course they were completely worn out at that point so even the higher weight of the 240B was nothing in comparison to finally having a decent MG.

    Two memories of the 60- The first is doing FTXs and getting early warning of an ambush as the OPFOR’s bolt rode down with a CLUNK. The second is getting a replacement 60 from the band, which of course was basically unused, when ours were deadlined. How nice that was and a sad day when ours came back from repair.

    Make sure you dummy cord that wrench!

  12. Paul says:

    that a nice weapon they choose i wish the u.s can buy new m60 i really hate the m240