![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted:
Never used the MG-3, but I have heard them. Drops rounds fast. Wouldn't mind having that thing on mounted ops. don't know the accuracy or recoil on it./ I shot an MG-42 once. Didn't like it. Hard to control. |
|
|
|
Quoted: leaf spring on upside down work itself off under firing conditions. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 240 smokes the 60 any day of the week in my opinion. 240 is much more reliable. 240 is far easier to make repairs and do maintenance on. It only goes together one way. You can have rounds on the feed tray with the bolt forward (make sure the bolt is forward before you put the rounds on the tray ![]() 240 has a much lower risk of a runaway I find the 240 to be much more accurate and controllable The 60 is much easier to fire from a standing offhand, and is lighter. thats about all I will give it. Put the firing pin in the 60 backwards and then couldn't figure out why it wouldn't fire? Gas piston in backwards = now bolt-action machine gun? We had that happen once. Our platoon was ordered to lend an M60 to the maintenance platoon so they could send a truck out on a recovery mission the next day. Apparently they took it apart to clean it that night and put everything in backwards. When we got it back it was a sniper machine gun. ![]() Yup, gas piston was the most popular. I feel like there was another part that was occasionally put in backwards, but I cant remember what it was for the life of me |
|
Say what you will about the M60, when that thing was dialed in it ran like a sewing machine!
|
|
M60 was like the temperamental bitch we all dated at one point in our lives. She would get the job done, but you never really felt good showing her off, and was a lot more work to keep her up than what she was worth. The M240 on the other hand works.........ALL THE F'ing time!!!! Dry, dirty, oily, whatever it is but it shoots like a champ. And way more accurate than the M60 as well. Only fault with the M240 is there lacks a provision to shoot it readily without the bipod down. I think the newer models are coming out with shorter, lighter barrels. I dont even think that the M60 deserves an honorable mention against the 240.
|
|
The m60 can be re-assembled incorrectly, The m240 cannot.
The M60 can be fired standing, the M240 cannot. The 60 has a slowe rate of fire. 7.62X51mm ammo is heavy and I prefer to be able to dismount and use my machine guns so given the option I take the M60. Preferably E3 or E4 |
|
Quoted: The m60 can be re-assembled incorrectly, The m240 cannot. The M60 can be fired standing, the M240 cannot. 7.62X51mm ammo is heavy and I prefer to be able to dismount and use my machine guns so given the option I take the M60. Preferably E3 or E4 Actually, it can be if you have a 3 position gas regulator (which are going out the window now). If you put it in the wide open position which will give you damn near 1k RPM on a squeaky clean gun you can damage it. Other than that, that weapon is a thing of beauty. Although, I did like the 60, just took more attention to detail when doing PMS on it. |
|
Quoted:
As for other attributes, as mentioned above.... the M240b is built like a tank, and the barrel swaps are easier. I've never changed a barrel in combat, smoke it and get a new one if you warp it. |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The m60 can be re-assembled incorrectly, The m240 cannot. The M60 can be fired standing, the M240 cannot. 7.62X51mm ammo is heavy and I prefer to be able to dismount and use my machine guns so given the option I take the M60. Preferably E3 or E4 Actually, it can be if you have a 3 position gas regulator (which are going out the window now). If you put it in the wide open position which will give you damn near 1k RPM on a squeaky clean gun you can damage it. Other than that, that weapon is a thing of beauty. Although, I did like the 60, just took more attention to detail when doing PMS on it. The M240D still comes with the three hole gas regulator, higher rate of fire for aircraft guns. We ordered the 240D gas regulators for the 240's that dident have them. |
|
The M60 was known for jamming a lot, due to lack of care from gunners, usually and high volumes of rounds through them.
The 240G replaced it, I was in when they did this. I was a machinegunner in the infantry, mos 0331. We had to write up pro's and con's of the 240 vs M60 basically the 240 fired more rounds faster, jammed less, weighted more, longer length of weapon, heavier with spare barrel bag and tripod, pintol, and T&E. It also had no forward pistol grip for shoulder, under arm and inner thigh firing. Both are good weapons and I would gladly have eather one... ![]() |
|
WTH is that wormlike think sticking out of his bicep and into his mantit??? |
|
Quoted:
The M240 is the best GPMG ever devised. The M60 went through four or five generations before it worked well enough to be in service anywhere and that only happened after the M240 was adopted. BS...when the 240 came out for issue, the M60 went away...same day..atleast in the units I knew of...and yes we bitched about the extra weight and all that..it sucked at first, the M60E3 was what I had and it was a good gun. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The M240 is the best GPMG ever devised. The M60 went through four or five generations before it worked well enough to be in service anywhere and that only happened after the M240 was adopted. Many would say the PKM is better than the M240. In some ways (i.e. dismounted) the PKM is better, but overall, as a GPMG, I think the 240 is very hard to beat. Quoted:
M240 looks like it could survive an free fall from outer space, that thing is very robust. I knew a guy who accidentally dropped his 240 during a jump with the 82nd when he released his equipment to land. I'm not exactly sure how, but I'm pretty sure he screwed up and just didn't attach the weapon case to the lowering line, and it was somehow overlooked. After he recovered the weapon it did continue to function normally, except, iirc, the heat shield. ![]() |
|
M240B is a better GPMG...my weapons squad just got the new M240Ls...the weight difference is nothing short of amazing!!!
when the armorer handed it to me I was impressed....my two gunners were pleased ![]() ![]() |
|
Quoted:
I have carried both and I was properly trained on the M60. That said, by the late nineties the M60's I encountered in the 25th ID were worn out rattle traps. They were so bad in fact that we had to dummy cord parts on them to keep from losing them out in the field. But I have used 60's that were in good shape, fairly reliable, and will be the first to admit that the weapon served the U.S. well. As for which I prefer, hands down it is the M240B (as if my screen name isn't a hint). It was late 1997 when I went down to the arms room and took my newly assigned M240B out of the cardboard box. From that point on I never had a single stoppage when putting rounds down range with a GPMG. And to anybody with half a brain that fact alone negated it's heavier weight. But that simple truth alone can be attributed to the 240's being new versus the worn out 60's. What really sold me on the 240's was it's accuracy compared to an M60. New or old one's, I never seen a M60 that shot like an M240. And where I could see that difference was the first stage of qualifying with a GPMG. In the Army the first stage is a big paper target that tests your ability to properly manipulate the traversing and elevation mechanism of the tripod. Example: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/image887.gif ...With the M60 a 5-7 round burst would be all over one of those individual silhouettes. And there would usually be fliers. With an M240B there would be a 5-7 round burst that looked like a cloverleaf. No fliers, and for the whole 10m exercise with that target. Then you went on to the actual firing range. End result was I qualified expert with the M60 a couple times. Never shooting a perfect. With the M240B I shot a perfect the first time we took them to the range. And I qualified expert every single time with it from that point on. So accuracy alone made me a believer. As for other attributes, as mentioned above.... the M240b is built like a tank, and the barrel swaps are easier. I used to shoot perfect with the 60 every time. Ours weren't that bad. |
|
Quoted: Seriously, use Google.Quoted: The M240 is the best GPMG ever devised. The M60 went through four or five generations before it worked well enough to be in service anywhere and that only happened after the M240 was adopted. OK, I'm assuming they took what they learned from the 60 & applied it to the 240 (at least one would hope so). Does anyone happen to know what those technical details were? The M240 is a variant of the Fabrique Nationale Mitrailleuse d'Appui Général 58 (FN MAG or MAG 58) or the general purpose machine gun 58 (the British just call it the GPMG). It is the most successful and widely used GPMG in the "Free World" (the part of the world that wasn't communist or getting communist weapons) since 1958. In 1977, the US adopted it, initially as a tank coaxial machine-gun to replace the piece of shit abortion called the M73 /M219 (possibly the worst machine-gun ever). The M60 is a US-designed machinegun. Much of it's design was derivative from the German WWII MG42 dual-purpose machine-gun and the German FG42 automatic rifle. It was basically designed from bits and pieces of other machine-gns by a committee of non-firearms engineers at what is now Saco Defense. It entered service with the US Army in 1957. The M240 replaced it because of the numerous design flaws in the M60. The gas system on the M60 had to be safety wired into place or it would come apart. It also used a flat leaf spring to hold the two pins that secured the pistol grip trigger mechanism. Put the spring in backwards and the pins fell out and you lost the pistol grip trigger mechanism - and could fire the gun. It was also plagued with reliability issues. It took a dedicated gunner to keep an M60 working. It wasn't a bad machine-gun, it just wasn't as good as the M240 or even the PKM. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I have carried both and I was properly trained on the M60. That said, by the late nineties the M60's I encountered in the 25th ID were worn out rattle traps. They were so bad in fact that we had to dummy cord parts on them to keep from losing them out in the field. But I have used 60's that were in good shape, fairly reliable, and will be the first to admit that the weapon served the U.S. well. As for which I prefer, hands down it is the M240B (as if my screen name isn't a hint). It was late 1997 when I went down to the arms room and took my newly assigned M240B out of the cardboard box. From that point on I never had a single stoppage when putting rounds down range with a GPMG. And to anybody with half a brain that fact alone negated it's heavier weight. But that simple truth alone can be attributed to the 240's being new versus the worn out 60's. What really sold me on the 240's was it's accuracy compared to an M60. New or old one's, I never seen a M60 that shot like an M240. And where I could see that difference was the first stage of qualifying with a GPMG. In the Army the first stage is a big paper target that tests your ability to properly manipulate the traversing and elevation mechanism of the tripod. Example: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/image887.gif ...With the M60 a 5-7 round burst would be all over one of those individual silhouettes. And there would usually be fliers. With an M240B there would be a 5-7 round burst that looked like a cloverleaf. No fliers, and for the whole 10m exercise with that target. Then you went on to the actual firing range. End result was I qualified expert with the M60 a couple times. Never shooting a perfect. With the M240B I shot a perfect the first time we took them to the range. And I qualified expert every single time with it from that point on. So accuracy alone made me a believer. As for other attributes, as mentioned above.... the M240b is built like a tank, and the barrel swaps are easier. I used to shoot perfect with the 60 every time. Ours weren't that bad. Man ours were. They were so sloppy by that time you could shake the shit out of it and get parts to fall off. ![]() When I first got to 1st BDE, 25th ID, I was shocked by all the weapons to be honest. And maybe "big Army" decided that it would be that way. Because within a couple months we got spanking new M9's, M4's, "para" M249's, and M240B's. So maybe we just had the bottom of the barrel issued until all the new weapons showed up. But it was a roll of the dice because we were in DRB rotation, shitty weapons or not. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The M240 is the best GPMG ever devised. The M60 went through four or five generations before it worked well enough to be in service anywhere and that only happened after the M240 was adopted. BS...when the 240 came out for issue, the M60 went away...same day..atleast in the units I knew of...and yes we bitched about the extra weight and all that..it sucked at first, the M60E3 was what I had and it was a good gun. Work on the M60 has continued; the M60E4 is a very different weapon than the M60 that was replaced in the 1990s. Quoted:
Quoted:
As for other attributes, as mentioned above.... the M240b is built like a tank, and the barrel swaps are easier. I've never changed a barrel in combat, smoke it and get a new one if you warp it. While I like this statement, I think that if you have a T&E, a range card and an enemy with a penchant for using a regiment in the frontal assault you might like to change barrels from time to time. |
|
M240/GPMG doesn't need an asbestos glove to change the barrel.
M60 would be better described as a light support weapon....with punch M240 is more versatile I like the M60 though....and I do have a not inconsiderable amount of time on it ![]() |
|
The 240 is a POS. Yeah it fires fine, but so does the 60. I've been in the infantry long enough that I've used both. The 240 is fine, if it's mounted. It sure wasn't made to hump. There is no where to hold it, especially when firing unless you are in the prone or it is mounted. Thank God it's days are numbered. We had guys test firing the new titanium 60 and from what I was told by them it will be entering service again and replacing the 240 in the near future.
|
|
The 240 was waaaay after my time, so I have no knowledge of them.
The 60 I dragged over half of Germany was old, and used, but well-maintained. It sometimes had issues firing blanks from previously opened cans, but shot live ammo all day long. As long as I did my part, my Pig did it's, too; fire six-round bursts for freaking EVER. Loved the M60, and she loved me. |
|
Quoted:
After two years as an armorer, and a total of 25 years being the small arms go-to guy in most of the units I was in, mere words cannot describe the level of hatred I feel for the M60, and the people who foisted that abortion on us. The only thing saving the M60 from going down in history as the Worst Machine Gun, Ever(tm) would be the brief period of time we inflicted the Chauchat on ourselves. Here's what you can install backwards, and still manage to assemble the weapon: *Firing pin *Gas piston *Sear *Bolt *Firing pin sleeve and firing pin spring *Bolt cam sleeve and firing pin retention plug (which leaves that little pin as an extra part, to get lost...) *Pistol grip retention pins *Spring plate that retains the retention pins Of these parts, the worst choice of things to fuck up on is probably the firing pin. That leaves you with a non-firing weapon. The gas piston, you get a straight-pull, bolt-action belt-fed rifle. The sear gets you a runaway gun, assuming you're stupid enough to load a belt into a weapon the bolt won't stay back on. All the rest, well... You just have varying degrees of non-functionality and potential for parts to fall off while in the field. I once had a weapon returned to my arms room that had everything possible put back together wrong, and on top of that, the idiots had taken the safety wire off of the gas system. I still don't understand how they got the bolt onto the operating rod backwards, and then into the receiver. Took a mallet and brass drift to get that damn thing apart, afterwards... A well-designed weapon will not allow itself to be reassembled in any other way than the one that it's meant to be. The M60 fails that test, miserably. On that factor alone, they should have sent the thing back to the designer with a big "Let's try this, again, shall we?" note applied to it. Instead, they bought tens of thousands of the damn things, and made it an issue item for decades. Additionally, the damn things gas system required a series of fixes to be applied, because it had the habit of spontaneously self-disassembling itself. Any weapon requiring the armorer to use aircraft safety wire to hold the thing together? Well, let us simply say "Self-evident design failure". That's another point where someone should have said "Hmmm... Bad idea, start over...". Let's not even get into the way that the bolt, operating rod, and sear had this lovely habit of beating each other to death. A set of stones had to be supplied to the armorer's tool kit, simply to keep the peening to a minimum. This problem was bad enough when they issued LSA as a lubricant, but when they went to BreakFree, the M60s started dying left, right, and center. My speculation is that the much thicker and tenacious LSA served as a cushion between the battering parts, and prevented the weapons from wearing out quickly. After BreakFree came in, the damn things suddenly demonstrated much lower reliability, higher maintenance, and much shorter serviceable lifespans. They should have stuck with LSA for everything besides the M16, in my opinion. The M60 was an utter piece of shit, and my perennial maintenance and training nightmare for most of my career. I hear the guys who served in Vietnam laud the things to the sky, and all I can do is look at them in utter bewilderment, and wonder if we're talking about the same weapon. The M60 should never have made it out of troop trials in the form that it did, and the fact that it somehow won out over the MAG58 during those trials leads me to wonder what they were thinking. It's ironic that the MAG58 wound up being procured as the M240 for coax use in tanks, and then got back-doored into being our standard MG thirty years later, and without significant trials in that role. The success of the M240B speaks volumes as to the validity of those early trials which resulted in the M60 being fielded. Both the M16 and M60 are indications that the Army's small arms procurement systems were broken mid-century, and the fact that those weapons were standard issue for as long as they were is something that still amazes me. After the Ichord committee got done, they should have gone through the procurement system with fire and sword, fired everyone involved, and started fresh. That they didn't? Well, that's why we're still trying to shoehorn the M16 into the 21st century as the M4, and why the Marines and Rangers had to do an end-run around the system to get the M60 replaced with the M240G and B models. Criminal incompetence. I only spent 4 years in the army and usually got saddled with that POS every where I went. I had exactly ONE that would run almost all the time and, if I recall correctly, it had to be fairly wet (lots of oil). All the others were 5-6 shot MG's then you were reaching for the charging handle. When I was in I never personally met an armorer that gave a shit about any of the weapons. As long as they were clean and checked in/out when it was convenient for them. Being functional was not a concern for them. I sometimes wonder if my experience would be different with good armorers. I believe that most guys that have an affinity for the M-60 never had to actually use one on a qualification range or in the field. I never got to fire a 240. When I was in they were just coax on Bradleys and M1's. I did get to see them fired at the range and during Desert Storm. None of the scouts ever complained about it. They said it was highly reliable. |
|
as a USAF heavy aircraft crew chief I have no experience with either, but I'd go with the 240.
From what I've read they tend to be more reliable, plus IIRC most of NATO uses it anyway |
|
Quoted: some of my M240B's at work have them as well. I have to make sure those retarded BM's don't f up my preciousesssss.. Quoted: Quoted: The m60 can be re-assembled incorrectly, The m240 cannot. The M60 can be fired standing, the M240 cannot. 7.62X51mm ammo is heavy and I prefer to be able to dismount and use my machine guns so given the option I take the M60. Preferably E3 or E4 Actually, it can be if you have a 3 position gas regulator (which are going out the window now). If you put it in the wide open position which will give you damn near 1k RPM on a squeaky clean gun you can damage it. Other than that, that weapon is a thing of beauty. Although, I did like the 60, just took more attention to detail when doing PMS on it. The M240D still comes with the three hole gas regulator, higher rate of fire for aircraft guns. We ordered the 240D gas regulators for the 240's that dident have them. ![]() |
|
why they didnt just stick with the MG42 is beyond me.
it was a perfect design. |
|
Quoted:
why they didnt just stick with the MG42 is beyond me. it was a perfect design. Too high a cyclic rate and too heavy. Apparently during WWII we tried running some with 30-06 and they could not be made to run reliably. |
|
Quoted:
why they didnt just stick with the MG42 is beyond me. it was a perfect design. Yeah. Not really. |
|
Quoted:
The m60 can be re-assembled incorrectly, The m240 cannot. The M60 can be fired standing, the M240 cannot. The 60 has a slowe rate of fire. 7.62X51mm ammo is heavy and I prefer to be able to dismount and use my machine guns so given the option I take the M60. Preferably E3 or E4 + The 240/FN-MAG is a better static location weapon The M60 can run away if allowed to get too hot hence the E4 not a great improvement of the weapon Given a choice of the two weapons, I still prefer the Russian PKM. |
|
Quoted:
The M60 was an abortion of the perfectly good MG42. The 240 is an excellent weapon. AMEN!!! |
|
m60e4....lighter weight, and it fixed all the problems of the original m60. they have a test fire, where they fire a single 800 round burst.... they are bad ass... m240 is the most awkward gun i have ever had to carry.
1600 round failure test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD2hV8uCkQM |
|
[/quote]some of my M240B's at work have them as well. I have to make sure those retarded BM's don't f up my preciousesssss.. ![]() [/quote] Spoken like a true Gunners Mate! Amen brother. But the new term is "Boat Mangler". |
|
The new generation of M-60s are nice but IMHO the 240 is an all-timer.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The m60 can be re-assembled incorrectly, The m240 cannot. The M60 can be fired standing, the M240 cannot. yes it can, but it is hard to hit things... 7.62X51mm ammo is heavy and I prefer to be able to dismount and use my machine guns so given the option I take the M60. Preferably E3 or E4 Actually, it can be if you have a 3 position gas regulator (which are going out the window now). If you put it in the wide open position which will give you damn near 1k RPM on a squeaky clean gun you can damage it. Other than that, that weapon is a thing of beauty. Although, I did like the 60, just took more attention to detail when doing PMS on it. ![]() |
|
We really should dump the 240 for an upgraded redesigned version, not just one made out of a lighter metal. The riveted plate construction is extremely outdated, it was outdated in WWII but for some reason the Belgians continue to use it. By going to a machined one piece receiver it would save as much weight as the new 240L's titanium receiver for much less cost or could combine the two for even more weight savings. The gun should also be converted to a semi bull pup fashion like the M60, MG34, MG42 and the MG3. If the back of the receiver was reshaped to allow a cheek rest the stock could be shortened, the pistol grip could be moved forward to just behind the ejection port and a forend/foregrip could be put on the front of the receiver just in front of the ejection port and barrel release leaving a much more compact and ergonomic package with the reliability of the 240 but the comfort of the M60. For what we pay for 240's it really isn't too much to ask for them to be modernized, last I heard we were paying about $12,000 a gun. For that much we should be getting a much, much better gun with more to offer than just reliability.
|
|
There's transferable M60s.
I'm just saying. On a side note, if I recall correctly weren't there a handful of 240s that made it in before the lock? |
|
Quoted: Both the M16 and M60 are indications that the Army's small arms procurement systems were broken mid-century, and the fact that those weapons were standard issue for as long as they were is something that still amazes me. After the Ichord committee got done, they should have gone through the procurement system with fire and sword, fired everyone involved, and started fresh. That they didn't? Well, that's why we're still trying to shoehorn the M16 into the 21st century as the M4, and why the Marines and Rangers had to do an end-run around the system to get the M60 replaced with the M240G and B models. Criminal incompetence. What is your opinion of the M16 and M4? What do you think we should replace them with seeing based upon your experiences? I'm hoping you have a rant just as awesome as your M60 one ready to go. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
why they didnt just stick with the MG42 is beyond me. it was a perfect design. Because it was a Nazi weapon. Stupid but that was the reason. |
|
Quoted:
The M60 was an abortion of the perfectly good MG42. The 240 is an excellent weapon. ![]() |
|
I've used the M60, M60E3, the M240 and the Mk48.
I think that for a light patrol MG the M60E3 might be a little better than the Mk48. 240 obviously is more rugged than either. My experience on the original M60 is limited, but what retard attached the bipod to the barrel? |
|
I cut my teeth on the M60E3 in 1987 and carried and ran a crew for 3 years. They ran fine in the USMC. They rec'd regular maintenance. I only recall one bad incident when my gunner was firing blanks in a FX. The gun had a stoppage and was improperly cleared. The gunner cycled the bolt and fired again and managed to fire a blank out of battery because another round was in the chamber. The OOB blew the extractor out.
Later in the guard I used lots of older M60s of the original type. They were not well maintained and still had braided op rod springs, old op rod spring guides, weak feed tray cover springs. Weak feed tray cover springs will F up the cycling of the M60 as the rounds aren't kept in propper position. I've also seen one or two runaway guns due to horribly dished out sears due to lack of maintenance and likely a gunner failing to fulling pull the trigger to the rear while firing. That's my $0.02. I have never finger F'd an M240 GPMG. They look stout and fricken heavy. If I was vehicle bound I'd gladly go with them. If I was ground pounding give me the 18.5 lb M60E3 or the 4. I swear these guys currently in are going to have an assload of bad backs and knees with the weight they're carrying. Glad I"m out! ![]() |
|
Quoted: My experience on the original M60 is limited, but what retard attached the bipod to the barrel? It was very 1950's. Also the front sight is fixed, so zeroing your spare barrel is 'interesting'. |
|
Quoted:
The 240 is a POS. Yeah it fires fine, but so does the 60. I've been in the infantry long enough that I've used both. The 240 is fine, if it's mounted. It sure wasn't made to hump. There is no where to hold it, especially when firing unless you are in the prone or it is mounted. Thank God it's days are numbered. We had guys test firing the new titanium 60 and from what I was told by them it will be entering service again and replacing the 240 in the near future. The titanium receiver guns are M240Ls. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.