View Full Version : Thoughts on the M60 (competition).

February 8, 2005, 01:54 PM
First of all, a bit of background for you.
I am a proud member of my Air National Guard Wing’s Base Marksmanship Team, and I recently made it on a light machinegun team. :) We normally fire very nice M240Bs and I cannot extol the virtues of this weapon enough, although it is a pain to clean.
So as I said I made a machinegun team and we were going to the Adjutant Generals state match this last weekend. I show up zero-dark-thirty on Friday to learn that the Air Force has nixed the use of the M240B on a safety issue. :eek: We got a hold of one Army National Guard M240B and the number one team was going to use that. The rest of us were now going to use M60s borrowed from another Army NG unit. :(
So we get to Camp Swift and offload and draw our weapons. They then tell us ammo is scarce and we only get 100 round belts to zero in the 60s. :( So my gunner and I get behind the weapons and zip out our rounds and beg 100 or so more rounds to play with a brand spanking new (to us) weapons system. We hit some stuff, but we had a real problem with the longer range (550 + yards) stuff, especially on the bipod. So we were not feeling good.
They then tell us that disassembly/assembly will be one of the competitions, as well as a fun match with dual SAWs (which was very cool). We all practiced breaking down the 60s that evening and the next.
Observations were that the M60 is easier to mount to the tripod (the 240 uses the same tripod as the 60) and much harder to get the T&E mechanism on. With the 240 targets out to 800 yards are dead, the 60 is much harder to tighten up and near impossible on the bipod. Our 60 was 100% reliable, the others on the line had some problems. I know one of the Army teams had major issues and I saw one of the Marine 60s have all sorts of problems during the match.
The 240 is easier to disassemble, although the 60 is not hard The 60 has the larger gun beat as far as ease of cleaning. The 60 is marginally lighter, but the ammo is the same so who cares. Barrel changes are so very much easier on the 240, and that stupid glove for the 60 is cumbersome. :barf:
It helps to put together the M60 correctly, as they do not function well otherwise, and if you have them, bring plenty of spare parts. They can be shot well, just not as well as the 240.
Overall I have to say that the M240B is a much better weapons system. More accurate and more reliable, the rest really does not matter. I would not feel inadequately equipped in the field if I got a M60 that was in as good shape as ours was, I am just glad we did not draw one of the weapons with problems.

And if you were wondering, I finished third individual overall, and took home 1st in novice. :cool: The 10 Air National Guard shooters on my team took the top 10 individual spots. The top 2 shooters were our number one team and they took First Team, another of our Air Guard teams took second, and a Marine team took third. Not bad for a new gun, we must have a solid training program in place to accomplish that feat.

February 8, 2005, 02:31 PM
I like the M60 (when they run) but I'd much prefer a 240. Lets face it, the pig is a disposable gun - whats the recommended service life; 75krds? 100krds? By comparison, the 240 is a beast - heavy steel sideplate gun like a 1919 that can go hundreds of thousands of rounds. I met a guy at a gunshow fresh out of the army and he joked that the only time he saw a 240 break and unable to fire was on a jump when a strap came lose and it dropped to the ground from about a half mile up. :D

I came across a good deal and almost bought an M60 last year, but decided on getting an MG42/MG3 instead. Just a more sturdy and reliable design than the M60. Like I said, I like the '60 for its looks and when they run, but they definitely have their issues. Which model were you shooting?

I'm still looking at possibly buying an M60, but with the price of parts (on the civilian market) I'm starting to consider an HK21/21E clone instead. I'd still rate the 240 above them all, with the MG42/MG3 running in second place. When I bought my 42/3, I could have had a MAG58/M240 instead if it wasn't a good $40-50,000 more than I was prepared to spend. :eek:

February 8, 2005, 08:08 PM
We were firing the standard M60.

The 240 is really a heavy full auto sniper rifle. We mounted a M3A scope off a M24 and were consistently nailing targets out past 800 meters.

If you are rating MGs you absolutly have to rate the M2HB First (Even though it is 60 lb 50 cal) I would love to fire one someday.

February 8, 2005, 08:43 PM

Thats not the first time I've heard a 240 referred to as a full-auto or beltfed sniper rifle. Great gun - wish I could afford one. And you're right, the M2 is at the top of the heap. Nothing like a 50. Closest I'll be able to come to an M2 is a TNW semiauto M2HB, but lately I'm kind of thinking an M82A1 may be a better purchase or me.

Oddly enough I like the look of the standard '60 the most, though thats the earliest type and supposedly the one with the most problems. The E3's and E4's are cool and have less issues with receiver and trunion wear, but I'm a sucker for barrel length and velocity.

February 16, 2005, 08:50 PM
M60, from one who has experience behind that gun (air force)

Unreliable, buy a blast shoot.
Never shot the m240G (what we got to replace the m60). Everyone that I knew that shot it said it was loads better than the m60, but it was heavy as a tank, but felt very well built, solid.

Eithor way, Id love to be able to shoot it in a competition.
I hated MGs when I was in the AF, were heavy and annoying (we never shot them, except to qualify with them, dont really want to get into why). If I was being shot at, I would love to have one around (m240). I would loath a m60. Part of the problem with the m60 was that parts for them were becoming scarse, and the examples that we had were so beat up and antiquated that they were just worn out. I bet they replaced the whole gun at least once in the entire lifetime of that weapon, piece by piece, but kept the feed cover the whole time (was stamped sheet metal that looked like it got run over by a tank)

February 17, 2005, 06:35 AM
I went through Infantry School at Ft. Benning right around the time the Army was starting to phase out the M60 and bring the 240B into play; we actually had to qualify on both.
From a lightfighter's standpoint, the M60 is ALOT easier to hump... not that that matters in a competition, but, I still have nightmares about trying to keep up on a 25 mile hump with a 240 slung on me. The M60, in its day, was a great gun... Few weapons have as intimidating a bark (hearing that thing go off in the assault just made you feel like, 'ok, we're gonna win this one!!') and I always shot pretty well with it. Unfortunately, the only 60's still around are at least 20 years old, and all of em are beyond their service life. The only M60 I saw in Iraq was rigged up onto some REMF type unit's Mad Max'd 998.
The 240B, while prolly not a grunt's best friend on the march, is still a superior weapon in pretty much every regard, except the aforementioned weight difference, ease of disassembly (file that under personal preference), and recoil (only matters if you're shooting from the bipod or "John Wayne" style). I've seen 240's left out on a perimeter, in the rain, (Yes, it does rain in the sandbox), with no maintenance for a week straight rip through a belt of ammo with 0 problems. I've seen them cycle muddy, rusty, sand choked, and sans lube. I've even seen them shot till they're glowing damn near white, and I have yet, in 7 years, to see 1 misfire. That's nothing short of amazing. While I may not like that weapon, I do respect it, and I can count that gun, Ma Deuce, and my M1114 as the 3 pieces of equipment I would not wanna go back to war without.