Machine Guns

Nice....

The M240 was just being introduced to the US Army when I was short. I got to look at one, and tear it down once, but we never had any to work on before I left.

I did get a chance to spend some time with a Canadian SP Arty unit, but back in those days they were using the Browning .30, modded to .308 (7.62 Nato).

They also let me shoot their FALs, Sterlings, and Hi Powers. Fun times.
 
well we got rid of the FALs, browning .30 and sterlings and replace the with c-6(m240) c-9(SAW), C-7 and C-8's but were still stuck with those awful brownings
 
DSCN0180.jpg
Here's mine, never had a problem with it as long as I use FMJ and stay away from cheap ammo. Any body want to help me, I can't get the picture to show.
 
Last edited:
M60 aka THE PIG

i love the M60 and the 240B. In regards to the overall effectiveness, both are extreme firepower and combat multipliers on the battlefield. The only complaint is that both are extremely heavy. We carried one (60) for exercises while we were at Army Warrior Forge, and i can really see why the Army decide against the design after lugging it around. The Army is trying to lighten the load on the 240B as we speak. they are now testing the effectiveness of a 4 INCH SHORTER BARREL WHICH KNOWCKS THE WEIGHT DOWN 1.5 POUNDS. ANYTHING CAN HELP:D:)
 
The Pig

At 23lbs the orginal M60 is a bunch to lug around, but compared to the Browning 1919A6 at 32lbs it is a light weight.

We called it the "pig" when we had to carry it or work on it, but maybe it should have been called the "cow". It sure was a cash cow for the manufacturers. These faults have been known for a long time, but for those who haven't heard them yet, here we go.

M60 problems/deficiencies:

Heavy - only in the eyes of people who never had to schlep around even heavier machine guns.

The gun chews itself up when it fires. Bolts and op rods chew each other up, and the op rod needs frequent stoning (and eventual replacement) to maintin serviceability.

The feed tray is flimsy, and the rivets for the hanger break very easily.

The bipod is on the barrel, meaning each spare barrel has to have a bipod, adding weight and cost. Problem corrected in late versions of the M60 (IIRC)

The carry handle is on the gun, not the barrel, meaning you can't use it to change a hot barrel. There was an asbestos "oven mit" issued to handle the hot barel. Again, more cost and complexity.

And the design of the sear/op rod interface meansd that the sear is subject to accelerated wear. Also a few parts (bolt roller, gas piston) can be installed backwards, with unfortunate results.

All in all, considering it was designed by a comittee, by taking features or ideas from other guns, it is a wonder it works as well as it does. The new FN design (M240) is a better gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top