The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 30, 2011, 12:40 PM   #1
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,258
General Purpose Machine Gun.

How does the M60 rate against the FN MAG.

My opinion the FN MAG is a far superior weapon.
manta49 is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 01:51 PM   #2
jonnyc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 819
Well, having been a MAAGist in the IDF, I can tell you the Mag58 is reliable and fun to shoot, but heavy. I have seen lots of pics of M60 gunners firing from the shoulder, not any easy thing to do with the Mag. I think I would still take the Mag.
jonnyc is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 02:21 PM   #3
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,258
I have used the FN MAG but not the m60. I think the FN MAG is arround 2 kg heaver.
The barrel change on the m60 was a problem.
manta49 is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 12:12 AM   #4
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,214
I used (and repaired) the M60 in the mid 70s. The only personal experience I had with the Mag 58 was as the M240 coax machine gun, just coming into service as I was leaving.

The M240 is a better gun.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 04:57 AM   #5
R1145
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 343
Short answer: The MAG...

...But, the M-60 was noticeably lighter (and I think, shorter), which made it a good infantry gun. It had good ergonomics, but was not "soldier proof", and had various quirks. As a patrol gun, I think I'd rather have "the pig", but the MAG is generally recognized as the more reliable design.
R1145 is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 11:27 AM   #6
plouffedaddy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2011
Location: Carolina
Posts: 3,221
I've used both and in my experience, the MAG is much more reliable. It also is now made in a 'light' version which has titainum parts to lighten it. They shorten the life of the weapon but are loved by the men humping up and down mountains in the 'stan. I have gone to the factory where both versions are made several times (it's in Columbia, SC) as part of a military advisory team and the manufacturing is top notch.

The ones I've seen have problems in the field are either broken or have the gas set on the wrong setting. If these guns are properly maintained, they are simply awesome.

The M60 is a great weapon and I'd feel very comfortable going to war with it (as some National Guard units still do) but I'll take the MAG any day.
plouffedaddy is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 02:11 PM   #7
R1145
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 343
The barrel change on the -60 was fairly simple, but awkward. The bipod is attached to the barrel, along with the piston cylinder, resulting in a heavier unit. There is also no handle, so handling a hot barrel was problematic (an asbestos glove was provided for the purpose).

The actual barrel change was facilitated by a simple lever, which worked well, but if the gun was on the bipod, the gunner had to cradle the gun while the a-gunner did the change.

The barrel itself was heavy enough and chrome-lined, so it held up pretty well, but I was never in a situation that required sustained fire.
R1145 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07316 seconds with 7 queries