Oh, now you've done it. You've triggered my patented "wall o' text" diatribe mode... Strap in for a lengthy rant, and those of you who didn't do so well at reading in grade school, ignore this post. Trust me, you'll wish you had...

Most of my angst with the M16 family has to do with the way they procured the damn thing, and how the caliber they're chambered for basically came about due to a fit of absent-mindedness. The M16/M4, as issued today, are perfectly adequate weapons that serve well, and are just good enough to work in most of the roles we use them for.

However... That said, they sure as hell aren't the best thing we could be issuing our troops. Sometimes, the "installed base" and mediocrity are the worst enemies of fixing things.

Here are the things I don't like about the M16/M4/5.56mm cartridge, in no particular order, which are more focused on the entire process we have embraced for our small arms procurement:

Nobody looks at this shit systematically. The fire team/squad is a weapons system consisting of various components working together. The individual weapon needs to integrate in with the various support weapons, and the capabilities need to mesh. One also needs to take into account the intended terrain for combat, and the enemy we're engaging. Right now, we're finding out in Afghanistan that a weapons mix originating in Vietnamese jungle fighting and adapted to Cold War mechanized warfare scenarios in Europe doesn't really transition very well to fighting an insurgency with light infantry in a high-altitude Eurasian desert environment. Someone should have done some thinking a few decades ago, and started working towards building a process into our military where this crap is constantly under a course of rolling evaluation, development, and improvement. Instead? We do things by crisis-triggered fits and starts, never taking the time to think things through and go for an optimal solution.

Case in point: Go back to how we got the M240B and G. Was there a process where we looked at the inventory, realized the M60 was due for a replacement, and then evaluated what we needed? Nope. Fuck, before the Rangers and Marines did their thing, the "system" was getting set to buy a bunch more examples of the M60, in order to "refresh the inventory".

Why weren't we looking at things with an eye towards adopting a better weapon? Probably because the people running small arms procurement are, collectively, morons. What wound up happening was that the Marines and Rangers concluded they were done screwing around with the M60, decided to do an end-run around the system, and modified existing coax weapons to ground mount versions. The powers-that-be in the procurement system would normally never have allowed that to happen, but when they were faced with the evidence that it worked better than the M60, and had everyone else clamoring for the same solution, they capitulated. And, as a result, we got stuck with a less-than-optimal MG for the role, which is why we're in the middle of a war, and trying to field things like the M240L and E6 versions of that same M240.

What should have happened, and didn't? Someone should have first determined what we need in a ground-mount MG, and run thorough tests. Those tests would have produced a comparison that would have probably told us that while the M240B was a great gun, it was too damn heavy for use by dismounted troops at high altitude. Or, for that matter, just about anywhere else...

This process would have led to either a lighter design being selected, or perhaps, a product improvement cycle like we're going through right now with the M240L. In any event, proper testing and fielding would have resulted in our troops actually going to war with weapons that serve their needs, instead of weapons that are too damn heavy to carry while wearing body armor and maneuvering at high altitude.

Like the M60 replacement program, the caliber argument flows into what I'm describing as a lack of systematic thought with regards to this arena. 5.56mm is probably the least thought-out cartridge we've ever fielded. You go back to how we got it, and what it boils down to is that the "system" failed us. I speculate that this happened because of inter-organizational politics, more than anything else.

At the end of WWII, the trend was apparent: Full size rifle cartridges were on the way out, due to a lack of ability to control full-auto individual weapons firing them, and logistics. Knowing that, the Brits developed the EM-2 and the .270 and .280 British cartridges, and even adopted them for a short period. Unfortunately, the US small arms community was fixated on high-power cartridges instead of intermediate-level ones, and we wound up with the 7.62mm NATO, which really isn't that suitable for full-auto fire in an individual weapon.

That was in the early 1950s. Flash forward a decade, and the first combat encounters in Vietnam where the troops armed with the M14 found themselves in contact with the AK47, and the true intermediate cartridge that it chambered. Whether justifiable or not, the complaints were that we were being overwhelmed by the volume of fire that troops with weapons chambering an intermediate cartridge can generate. It's entirely possible that the jungle environment this took place in influenced things a lot more than it really should have. I speculate that if we'd fought the Vietnam War in an environment akin to Afghanistan, we might have drawn opposite conclusions than the ones we did. Hard to say, really...

So, having conducted a real-world test, we decided the Brits were right, all along. Now, the small arms community could have gone back, made their mea culpas, and acknowledged they got it wrong ten years earlier, but they didn't. Instead, they doubled-down, and chose to go with an interim solution based on an unproven approach, namely the Small Caliber High Velocity concept, or SCHV, and a blue-sky solution called SPIWS. SPIWS was a flechette-and-grenade firing abortion that I speculate was thought up by the same genius who came up with the Johnny Seven O.M.A., and never fulfilled the promise it supposedly represented. My suspicion is also that they chose the AR-15 and the 5.56mm as their "interim solution" knowing full well that it wasn't the optimal choice, hoping that they wouldn't sabotage the future fielding of their chosen "wonder-weapon".

Instead, we wound up turning the "interim solution" into the longest-fielded individual weapon in US history.

Nowhere will you find anyone sitting down and actually saying "OK, here's our mission statement for role this caliber will fill. This is what it needs to do, and here are the ranges we expect this thing to be lethal. Here's how that's going to work within the system of weapons we're fielding at the team and squad level. Here's how we plan to fight with this weapon.".

Hell, you're going to look long and hard to actually find somewhere that someone has actually sat down and determined what it takes to kill a human being, and then validated it through real-world experience. Someone should have been gathering up the reports from things like Mogadishu, where the Rangers were complaining that they were hitting Somali gunmen with their M4s that didn't go down, then done the investigatory work to determine if that was true, and if it was, why. Then, they should have implemented fixes. Instead, we waited until fucking Afghanistan, before someone noticed that the M4 barrel being shorter cut down on the range at which the M855 was effectively lethal. How long after that  until we even began to address the problem? A couple of years? WTF? Someone should be monitoring this crap continuously, and evaluating how well things are working under current conditions, while continually slipstreaming fixes into the system. As it is? Things have to reach a crisis-point before someone takes action. Idiocy.

What should be going on? We ought to have teams going out to the combat zone who will perform real-world evaluations of how our weapons are performing, and how they are integrating into our tactics and operations. We should be wiring randomly selected units for sound, like we do with tanks at the NTC, observing them in combat, and then recovering the bodies of the enemy in order to determine if the weapons are working. Units ought to be selected for evaluations where we take in all their issued weapons before deployment, gauge the living hell out of them, and then do the same thing at the end of the deployment, in order to see how much wear they've received. That would tell us whether or not our current model for weapons management and maintenance is really working. Other units should have everything they own taken in, replaced with brand-spanking-new equipment, and then do the same sort of evaluation at the end of the deployment. Hell, black-boxing everything with round-counter technology should have been a development focus 20 years ago, and those round-counters should have been built into every weapon purchased since then.

What we're doing now, where questionnaires get handed out to PFCs as they leave the theater, asking highly subjective questions that don't tell you anything concrete, is simply retarded. Who gives a rat's ass what some knucklehead thinks about the performance of his weapons, if you don't know the facts about that individuals knowledge of those weapons in the first place? I'm sure that if you were to survey a bunch of 18B40s (Special Forces Weapons Sergeant MOS code), you might get some valid information. However, you'd still be fucked up, if you tried to extrapolate the experience those guys had onto a line Infantry battalion. Two different roles, two different sets of experiences, that don't necessarily transfer across to each other. The current way we're doing this can capture some interesting information, but making procurement and design decisions based on highly subjective opinions is exactly the thing I'm advocating we abandon.

Capture the actual information about what's going on on the battlefield, and then go from there. All else is folly.

Maybe the 5.56mm NATO is the ideal cartridge for an assault rifle. I'm not convinced that it is, but at least do the objective research to establish that I'm mistaken, please. I find it highly ironic that we've been on the cusp of adopting the "ideal" several times, and every time the option has come up, we do the "hurp-durp" shuffle, and do something else. The first time was the .276 Pedersen, and MacArthur shot that in the head. The second time, the candidate was the nascent .270/.280 British cartridge, which I suspect we'd still be using for both the assault rifle and GPMG roles if we'd adopted it. Third time 'round? The 6X45 SAW cartridges we first developed the SAW around. Oddly, all of those choices sort of center around the same point on the ballistics charts, and have analogous performance. We keep edging to the door, but don't open it up.

The M16/M4 itself isn't a paragon of mechanical virtues. Things I don't like about it are:

*Tthe buffer/operating spring, which requires so much room in the buttstock. I'd prefer the capability you get to put a folding stock on a weapon when you run the spring inside the receiver, like most modern weapons do.

*The gas system? OK, great that it reduces the weight of the recoil mass in the weapon to the bare minimum possible, but I think putting it into a caliber as small as the 5.56mm is a bridge too far. On the original AR-10, and the other direct-gas systems out there, you can actually clean the damn gas tube with a .22 bore brush. Try finding a .177 brush to clean out the one on the AR-15, will you? On top of that, what genius decided to put a couple of bends into the damn thing, in the first place? That gas tube should have been a straight pipe, and of a similar diameter to the bore, in order to facilitate cleaning it.

*The bolt itself. Why the hell did they find it necessary to use the bolt as the piston in a strange little internal combustion engine? Every other direct-gas system gets by with simply treating the bolt carrier as a piston cup. On a 7.62mm NATO weapon, doing what Stoner did isn't that big a deal. Downsize it to the 5.56mm, and you've got a problem. On that one issue, I think Stoner got too cute and elegant for his own good.

*Ergonomically, I think they got the damn thing almost perfect. All I have to complain about are the lack of ambidextrous controls, and that the bolt catch can't be accessed by the firing hand.

In some respects, the M16 is a superior weapon. Problem is, it shouldn't have been fielded the way it was, and once fielded, should have been undergoing a continuous process of evaluation and improvement. If we were honest with ourselves about performance, the 5.56mm should never have lasted past the post-Vietnam assessment that never really took place.

What should be happening is that the development cycle should be in a state of continuous readiness to field the next generation weapon as soon as the current set becomes either worn out and uneconomical to keep in the field, or technologically obsolescent. At the same time, the follow-on to the next generation of weapons should be in development, and improved technologies like caseless ought to be under evaluation for potential inclusion. We know weapons wear out, we know battlefield conditions change constantly, and we know technology is always improving. Why do we wait for a crisis to manifest itself before taking action?

I'm not a big fan of the way we keep striving for a "game changing" technology, either. LSAT is a good idea, but for the love of God, can we not first fix the systems we have with technology that we know works? Leave the blue-sky stuff for some possible future, please: We know there are issues with 5.56mm, and we're also pretty sure that the M4 isn't the best system available given modern technology.

First, lets identify if there are actually problems with these two items, and then, if there's justification, make the fixes with technology we know works. We know how to build an intermediate cartridge using current brass-cased technology. Figure out if the ballistics need to be improved, then design a new cartridge to reflect those necessary improvements.

Follow that by building a weapon to chamber that cartridge, using a proven platform. Get those weapons into the field, and while they're wearing out, do the blue-sky development that might result in a game-changing system like the caseless G11 being perfected. While that's going on, keep working with the low-risk technical improvements that the current system will need, and don't stop everything and freeze development because "it's in the field". We sat on our asses for way too long with the M16. As soon as the Vietnam-era weapons wore out, we should have had a much-improved weapon ready to field.

Instead? Panicked "OMG... We have to replace the M16A1... What'll we do, what'll we do...?", and we got the M16A2, which was a half-baked bullseye target version of the M16A1, and which didn't even address half the issues we really had with the M16A1. The A2 should have been a totally different weapon, firing a totally different cartridge, and if we'd played our cards right, the NATO trials that adopted the M855/SS-109 could have resulted in a cartridge being chosen that would have likely looked a lot like the previously-rejected .280 British.

The same thing is going on right now, and it's a fucking travesty. Who the fuck came up with this whole "hyper burst" idea, and why are they demanding it from the weapons submitted? Idiotic... But, that's US small arms procurement for you. Things like the Colt M1911 and the Garand are only exceptions to the rule of "stupid". <sigh>

M60 is a piece of crap. Some modification to improve it has been done with M60E1, but remains a piece of shit. It was the REAL failure in Vietnam, not the M16...

The FN MAG instead is a refined and very reliable GPMG.

I enjoy my transferable M60E4, but then I'm also not carrying it into harm's way.

HK21E FTW

Always best to give your most effective weapons to your least experienced Soldiers.

Clearly. What could possibly go wrong with that?

M240 is reliable and accurate, the M60 not so much.

They both have their pro's and con's.

For example, if I have to CARRY one of them and there's plenty of opportunities for picture
taking I'm going to have to go with the "Pig" (Just like I did back in the 80's) 'cause they
pose so much better.

HOWEVER, if my life depends on it and there's a chance I can mount the unwieldy fucker
on something (?)......gotta go with the '240/Mag-58/GPMG...ect (Just like I did back in the
80's and last year)......

+1

The way we did it was the AG/AB were the new guys, and the SPC/TL was on the gun.  Once I got CPL, I went to a line squad, my old AG became the gunner, my old AB became his AG, and a new guy became the AB.  I thought that is how everyone did it.  I spent most of my time as a Pv1-SPC on the gun team, and even though I was ready to just carry a M4 around I still think being on the gun team was more fun.

HK21E

*7.62x51mm NATO

*20lbs unloaded

*Roller-delayed blowback

*Fires from the closed bolt

*Trigger mechanism offers safe, single shot, burst or full automatic.

*800RPM

*Capable of sub-MOA accuracy

That is how we did it as well, but you had to be tall enough to be an AG or gunner.  I think it was 5'10" so you could jump with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjhhdoQsVA0

[qu

What should be going on? We ought to have teams going out to the combat zone who will perform real-world evaluations of how our weapons are performing, and how they are integrating into our tactics and operations.

You know, now that you mention it, when I was in service, I kept seeing these little documents produced by this group called the Army Center for Lessons Learned.  It seemed to be a group of senior officers and NCO's that did what you are saying.  Pay attention to all the little hot spots around the world and find out what is actually happening.  I swear I was the only person in my unit who ever even read some of those things.  And nothing ever changes.

However, as one who was in service with M60s, and M240s, I say if the M60E4 was the model that had been originally fielded in the 60s, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Its funny now, but it could easily get people killed.

Yeah we didn't have to worry about jump status at Drum, I am 5ft 7in, and come to think of it I was the shortest gunner in the company.  Every AG dreams about being the gunner, I was just happy to be rid of that damn AG bag, and I thought the gun helped with balancing the weight of a heavy ruck on long foot marches.

Yeah but I'm talking about new M60's that were test fired about a year ago that would replace the 240.

The 240b is king

MK48 > M60

The new "Ti" reciever guns being tested are M240Ls.  It would kind of hard to make a M60 out of titanium weight since it is a stamped receiver.

The Mk48 is an interim fix prior to fielding of M240Ls.

Then your Platoon Sergeant doesn't know WTF he is doing. I have seen the practice often. And where seen weak leadership abounded. Your GPMG's are the most important weapons in the platoon. Why the fuck anybody would give that weapon to a cherry is beyond me.



 

I still want to see how an M240B mounted on a steadicam harness would do.

The Center for Army Lessons Learned is a great organization, but... It suffers from a couple of flaws: First, it has this unfortunate tendency to get ignored by the rest of the Army when it comes to significant stuff––Take a look at how many of the TUSK program modifications for the M1 Abrams were actually identified years (decades, in some cases...) before we actually did something about dealing with the issues. The other problem with CALL is that it is far more passive than what I'm talking about doing––CALL tends to focus on identifying and documenting what the Army is actually doing, vice going out and running actual data gathering and experimentation. They have exactly zero command authority, and if CALL were to go to a commander and say "Give us all your weapons for a week, so we can gauge them and baseline them for data gathering", a unit commander could easily blow them off.

CALL is a good organization, but it's only about half-way to where I think things should be. Our military is almost entirely a "reactive" organization, as opposed to a "learning" organization. Actions are only taken when crisis points are reached, and that's not what we should be doing. It's as if they approach every weapons buy with a mental attitude of "This is the last (insert weapon here) we'll ever have to buy, and they won't ever wear out...". Then, when the damn things do wear out, and we finally admit that that particular system has reached the end of its service life, then we go into "OMG, we need to redo everything we've ever done, and re-invent the wheel...". Instead, what should be happening is that while the current system is in use, we should have a continuous process of evaluation, development, and testing. When the current system finally reaches the point where it needs to be replaced, then the next generation is ready to go, and already in the pipeline. Hell, if we were smart, we'd constantly be running production test batches of the new weapon, in order to refine production––Which would save our asses when it comes down to things like the initial M14 fielding, when we discovered that, no, you can't build the M14 on worn-out M1 machinery. Hell, it wasn't until TRW had built entirely new production facilities that that "minor" issue got ironed out...

Things need to change. Period. The way we do business is insane, and more appropriate to a third-world banana republic than our military.

I don't believe that for one second.

Aside from which, why would you even want "sub-moa" accuracy out of a support machinegun? The whole point is dispersion of the burst, even when engaging a point target. Machine guns that are too accurate have historically required some really elaborate and fussy machinery to force dispersion on them, when fired from a tripod. Going down that road isn't exactly a good idea.

The HK21 series of weapons are impressive. On paper. I don't know anyone who has fired one extensively in real life who's been an advocate, including a couple of 18B (which was then 11B with a "S" identifier...) guys who'd done an evaluation of the weapon back in the 1980s for possible use by SF. I met those guys on a foreign weapons familiarization course they were helping run for my unit, and the two of them were very dismissive of the HK21 when one of our HK fanboys spoke up saying he thought we should buy them to replace the M60. I can't remember everything they brought up, but a lot of it had to do with some of the parts being flimsy, and that whole "too damn accurate for a machine gun" thing. Interestingly, both those guys were outright advocates of the L7/MAG58 series of weapons that we eventually procured as the M240B. What was even funnier was them both saying they'd really prefer the PKM over everything else on the market––And, that was almost thirty years ago.

There are at least a couple.  They often go for near or over $100,000.



There are also a few pre-samples that SOT holders can buy and hold onto once their SOT lapses.  They go for around $40k+ IIRC.



 

I thought the M60 was the FG42 with the MG42 Feed Mech?  

LOL. Yeah, sometimes the fucking with the new guys goes alittle too far and that's one of them. I know that my buddy's dad who fought alot in Vietnam said they'd have new guys ON POINT. Fucking cherry ass dudes at the front of the column going out in the bush. I think all those are bad ideas.



My unit gave the 240 to the bigger and stronger guys, but also guys they planned on putting in a leadership position.



 

I have used both the MK43 variant of the M60 and the 240B.



Both worked fine, but the 240 bolt carrier was a much better design. Easier to maintain, less to break, easy to put back in the weapon, and it never bit you.



Overall much more robust.

Conceptually, the M60 as generally issued was flawed in the way the barrel was changed and how it could be assembled incorrectly.  Also, I'll never forget how the gas system was "safety wired" so it wouldn't unfuckingscrew during prolonged firing.  What kind of fucking MG is "safety wired" so it doesn't fall apart?  I watched the "A-Gunner" in our squad torgue down on the gas cylinder curing night fire between bursts.  Totally unacceptable.  

When we were issued the M60E3 back in 87 or so, it was a big improvement.  At least the bipod legs weren't part of the barrel that forced the gunner to hold the gun up with his hands while the A Gunner swapped out the hot barrel for a cold one.  I believe the gas system was improved, as was the design of the internals so that the thing wouldn't go together wrong and you ended up with a "run away" gun.  

The bad part about the M60E3 was the barrel was too thin, and overheated during long firing sessions.  The barrel would actually warp, it was so thin.    

I've fired many a round throught the M60 and M60E2 (coaxial MG for the M60 MBT).  A clean gun is pretty reliable, but the execution of the design, as I stated earlier, is quite flawed.  There were improvements made to later models, but the Army never felt it important enough to fund a PIP for the system.  Too bad, too.  Kind of like not buying fixed-headspace barrels for the M2 BMG.  Low priority.

The M240 series is the most reliable MG I've ever seen.  Damn heavy, but at least it works like advertised.  A tank company fires the hell out of the them during gunnery, and we never have problems with ours (at least the ones I've used between my old company and "A" Co 4th tanks out of Ft Knox.  Damn good design, and much better than the M60.

The M60E4 would probably be a damn fine weapon for the grunts.  I've held one and examined it, but never fired it.  When you have to hump the thing mile after mile (especially in the mountains), weight is a huge factor.

Exactly so. Here's what they copied, and screwed up:

*Operating system/bolt/operating rod: FG42. Almost a direct copy, but they neglected to follow up on the German "lessons learned" with that design, and build it so it couldn't be assembled improperly.

*Feed tray cover/feed mechanism: MG42. Simplified and screwed up. Again, failed to learn from the Germans, in that they copied the design but didn't learn from it. MG42 doesn't require the bolt to be in the rear, and there are two more pawls to grip the cartridges. Ernst Vervier copied that system directly from the MG42, and the MAG58 thus has a much stronger "pull" on its feed system. The M60 has one set of pawls pulling the belt into the feed tray, and those aren't enough when the system is stressed. On the other hand, the MAG58 will damn near pull your hand into the feed tray, if you get it stuck. I've seen flight gloves pulled in, eaten, and spit out the other side by the feed tray on an M240. On an M60, that'd never happen.

*Trigger assembly: MG42. Again, "simplified" and fucked up. On the later German guns and the MAG58, there's a spring-loaded sear that reduces wear on the bolt carrier/operating rod, along with two notches for the sear to engage (safety feature which prevents a runaway gun when the gas system or recoil doesn't impart quite enough energy to the bolt/bolt carrier to drive it all the way to the rear...). Poor gunnery technique (specifically, failing to release the trigger cleanly at the end of a burst) can lead to excessive wear on the sear notch on the operating rod, which in turn leads to the sear not engaging the operating rod, resulting in runaway guns. On a MAG58 and later MG42s, this doesn't happen because the spring-loaded sear prevents the gunner from screwing up––The sear engages cleanly, every time. The M60 only got the second sear notch late in its life, and that should have been in place early on.

The gas system, receiver, and everything else are strictly the responsibility of the idiots here in the US. That gas system... Yikes. Should have resulted in the entire design team being put up against a wall and shot, after they had to implement the safety wire fix.

One good thing on the M60: The barrels. For whatever reason, those were the only successfully mass-produced Stellite-lined GPMG barrel ever fielded. The UK tried it, FN tried it, and they never carried it off. Whatever production engineer managed to make those things mass-producible should have been the sole survivor, after the rest of the design team was put up against that wall.

The above details are one reason why I'm convinced that we apparently don't teach history in universities, anymore: All the AAR points, fixes, and everything to do with the two German weapons were available to the idiots who put together the M60. They ignored it. Ernst Vervier at FN apparently could read history, or he'd had exposure to the "lessons learned" that the Germans developed, because he addressed the issues inherent to the design features he copied. We didn't. We're idiots.

In my experience, the 240 is the baddest ass gun of all time. I've never had the pleasure of shooting an M60, but from what I've read and heard about it from experienced professionals in the small arms repair field, the M60 can be a bitch to keep running. The 240 just keeps going...

Spot on, sir.

When I joined the Corps. in 1992 we had the M60 E3 It had that stupid pencil thin barrell. In 96 we went to the M240G much better.When I joined the Guard we used the basic M-60 then in 06 we went to the M240B.On my Last deployent to A-stan in 2010 we got some MK48s these I liked light weight and 7.62mm

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

It shouldn't bump up rate of fire much more than 25-30 rounds per minute if you have the hydraulic buffer (B and N models maybe)

It does increase ROF with the mechanical buffer (G, right?)

ETA: Ask CG-Armorer about happy I was to be able to challenge a servicewide question dealing with RoF increase with the different gas regulator plug settings.  I believe I referred to the proper page of the TM from memory

It will beat the shit out of the gun though, so it's not a good idea.

Dont forget, although it is obvious if you look at it, that it had the worst barrel change ever.

The bipod is attached to the barrel so every spare barel comes with one.  More weight.

The front sight would usually lose zero during changes.

The carrying handle was on the gun so you had to use the asbestos gun or burn your hand.

And due to that fact, and a new AG, I'll go to the grave with a gnarly ass scar on my left arm.



 

One of my dad's contemporaries, an Ordnance Corps colonel, told me that the real problem in our WWII attempt to reverse engineer the MG-42 was that the Springfield Armory boffins made a math error in converting the metric dimensions of the captured examples into "English" (inch) measurements.



.30'06 is 3mm overall longer (85mm versus the 82mm of 7.92x57mm Mauser).



The tool room prototypes' receivers were too short.  So they fired one shot and then the bolt slammed back and hit the reciever.



The MG 42 weighs 25.5 lbs.  The M60 just over 23 lbs.  The M240 weighs 25.9 lbs.  Pretty much a wash.

That's what I heard too.





 

Also, remember the "NIH" (Not Invented Here) factor was really high with CONARC back then.  Army Ordnance wanted a US design to be adopted, and while I don't think the short receivers were intentional (although they could have been), it didn't take much for Ordnance to say "screw it, it doesn't work.  Next?"

Yep.  An M60 might be reliable when new, under the best of conditions; but under field conditions it was unreliable and universally hated, despite the lower weight and "cool factor".





M240's run.  They just work.  It's a brilliant, simple design, sort of a cross between an AK and a FAL.  They were the most reliable killing tool that I was ever honored to operate.  



LOL, after reading some of the replies, yeah, I could see where you might hate the M240 if you had to hump it.     I hated to carry it to the motor pool.       The only thing worse was the Ma Duece.  That was one heavy, uncomfortable bitch.





 

Who ever keeps posting HK 21 pics has never shot 1 very long!  Those things kick like a mule, and are too fast.

A 60 is very nice for short stuff from the shoulder, but really it is a suppression weapon and as such needs too be fired some what accuratly, from the shoulder they are ok, but........

If you have a 240 on a static hard mount you have something, you put 1 on a old MAG soft mount, and you have a laser beam!  On a soft mount it is probably 1 of the most accurate MG's ever developed, and certainly the most accurate I ever shot!

The PKM's have alot of advantages, but the biggest thing with them is the lgiht weight combined with a HCR.  I have a hard time keeping on target with them, some one larger than me may not.  1 huge advantage of the PKM is the loader you don't have to orient the rounds you just dump them in and crank the handle to load!  Even with a MG42 loader with the 240 isn't as fast because you do have to make sure all the rounds are oriented when placing them in the hopper!

A 249.......well it may look like a small 240 but it certainly doesn't shoot like 1

Even worse when you had the BFA installed



 

A GPMG shouldn't be fired from the standing offhand.

I've seen the Dutch use them:

BRRRRRRRRRRR

*change belt*

BRRRRRRRRRRR

*change belt*

BRRRRRRRRRRR

*change belt*

It would dump a 100rd belt in about 1.2 seconds, and they had to change belts each time.  If I had them things on my vics I would have figured out how to rig 1000rds together, and learned trigger control.

M60

With the weight to match.







Never humped one, but when the Security Forces guys came out with all their toys to a "Safety Day" presentation at the hangar, I got to get my hands on one, at least.

The Polish would know, google the UKM-2000.

Seriously,  this institutional stupidity towards machine gunners in the Army needs to fucking stop.