Talk:M60 Machine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force
Weaponry task force

Any chance of someone rewriting this in a les conversational and sarcastic tone?

I'll try to, at some point. This is definitely not NPOV. It's fair to discuss servicemen's perceptions of the weapon and its relative merits, but not with this kind of language. --Jpbrenna 06:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've removed most of the snideness, without obliterating the valid criticisms of the M60's combat effectiveness. Whoever put this together did a very good job, aside from the overdone sarcasm. I couldn't find sources for some of the opinions exprssed, but since I have the feeling that whoever wrote them is BTDT, which I am not, so I left them alone. Still, I'm thinking it might be nice to eventually have some actual quotes from real soldiers and marines about the gun. Maybe we could start a Wikiquote page where we would juxtapose quotes from both official publications from manufacturers and the military with comments from grunts who actually had to use the thing. I'm sure there are quotable comments to be found in the many books, articles etc. about the Vietnam War and later conflicts. Any volunteers? --Jpbrenna 19:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to question the use of the M60C as a co-axial MG. Only 563 were reportedly produced, hardly enough for the early helicopter gunship conversions and OV-10 Broncos (each of which typically used four apiece), much less the USMC's entire fleet of M48A3 tanks. Note, I said M48A3 not M60A1. The USMC reportedly did not get the M60A1 tank until 1975. This model was the first equipped with the M60E2. I suspect that the original author mistook the M60A1 tank for the earlier M48A3 series, and the M60E2 for the M60C. --D.E. Watters 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I can find no record of the M60C being used as co-axial either. Whats more, if they are talking about the M48A3, AFAIK it was fielded with the M73 mg, not a M60 mg co-axial (not until the M48A5). Ve3 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

According to D.E. Watters, the US Ord site used to say the Mk 43 Mod 0 was different from the M60E4. Now it claims they are the same. They differ in barrel length and flash hider used, which is often enough for a seperate designation and the treatment of the two systems as seperate. Thatguy96 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea, personally I can see it both ways (to say they are thee 'same' or not). I guess it depends on the context and how specific one is being when talking, such as about a specific variant or the family. I added some more technical details to make it clearer there is not just one variant. Ve3 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, there is also the fact that the Mk 43 Mod 0 used a special gas block, larger from the one on the E3 and E4, and a different model of foregrip.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=2083.1 is a thread I started about it.

Ok interesting, they are the same only in the most general context then. Ve3 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

From looking at pictures of early Mk 43 versus newer ones, I think that they started out different in the 1990s, but are now more or less the same. Ve3 23:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Has anyone heard about this plan to replace the M-240. That weapon is relatively new in terms of military acquisitions. I doubt this as special forces are testing a weapon based ont he M-240, the Mk.48. I doubt the military would keep on testing new concepts for a weapon that they are about to replace. The Mk.48 would effectively retire the Mk.43.

Barrel length does not matter on the M-60E4, as it can use many differant barrel lengths, so I would not say that the lengths were the cause for the seperate designation. I feel that it would be the reinforced parts on the weapon, such as the gas buffer.

The US Navy does use a differant system to catalogue its inventory. That is the Mark. Mod. system. For example, the SR-25 sniper rifle in the Army becomes the Mk.11, the SPR in the Army becomes the Mk.12. That could explain why one version is the M-60E4 and the other is the Mk.43.

Also, the new M-60E4 short assualt barrel can have 15,000 rounds put through it before having to be changed. If you do not believe me, I have a link to a website with a video testing that:

http://www.gun-world.net/usa/mg/m60gpmg/mk43mod0.htm To see the video, click on the video tape.

Also, I know the website is in Chinese, but they have really good gun pics.

Contents

[edit] DID I MISS SOMETHING

HOW ABOUT COMMENTS ON EFFECTIVENESS FROM MEN WHO ACTUALLY USED ONE. THE

M -60 OR PIG AS ITS CALLED BY ITS HANDLERS IS A BITCH.

BUT A BITCH THAT DOES THE JOB VERY WELL. WHEN LAYING DOWN GRAZING FIRE AN ENEMY WOULD BE INSANE TO ATTEMPT ADVANCING INTO THIS WALL OF LEAD. PROBLEMS, WEIGHT 23LBS, BARREL TEMP.WHEN FIRING IN COMBAT ENVIRONMENT,FEEDING PROBLEMS,AND HEAVY AMMO. EVERYONE IN A SQUAD CARRIES A BELT OF 100 IN ORDER TO HAVE ENOUGH TO FIGHT.


[edit] Infobox

Replaced the current "manual" html table with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox createde by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the whole variants section?

I was fixing a link when I received an edit conflict warning because someone was editing and when I got back to the article the whole section was gone. As for the automated "too long" warning; it was not too long, it was just damn well done.

Fixed.
As for the "too long" warning, the article is indeed excessively long (which can cause the page to be "cut off" unexpectedly, resulting in the accidental blanking you just did), and could use a good cleanup. The problem is that there are a number of afirmations/details being repeated several times in the article stating the same things. The introduction is also excessively long, and things like the "Variants summary" only make the article even longer than it has to be. I'm afraid, however, that if I tried editing it down it wouldn't last long. —Squalla 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yet Another Opinion

observation: what is missing is a mapping of what are the eqv. weapons of current (and past) armed forces... I am wondering for instance what was the USSR model that attempted to be use for the same role?

observation: from everyone I've known who actually depended upon an M-60 for in the field, they typically kept their personal rifle (M-16, etc.) closely at hand... and would wrap the M-60 in plastic immediately after field stripping and cleaning... isolating it in such fashion was a klug that more than one guy came up with in the desperate hope of postponing jamming for least three minutes... (low value) succtlebutt chatter included stuff about the plastic melting to the barrel and frontline troops being chewed out for uglying up their weapons...

thanks for listening

howard_nyc@yahoo.com

[edit] Missing section: M60 machine gun in popular culture

Even the uber-ignorant german Wikipedia has one!!! --Mikli 09:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It happened before I came here, or I would have been the one who kidnapped it :) - BillCJ 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable move

Why was this page moved? There was no explanation, no discussion, no consensus, and no need. "Machine" is not the M60's name; "machine gun" is a description. - BillCJ 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, carried away.
  • 1. The title of the page is "M60 machine gun" and should be capitalized.
  • 2. Although containing a letter, "M60" is essentially a numeric designation.
  • 3. Therefore the first letter of machinegun... er... machine gun should be capitalized as it is in M14 Rifle, M4 Carbine, M1 Carbine, etc. Deathbunny 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this stated somewhere on Wiki? I checked the Military History Project's naming conventions section, but it does't cover equipment. I understand your reasoning, though. - BillCJ 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You should have discussed things before doing these changes. The reason why "rifle" and "machine gun" should not be capitalized is because it is not part of the weapon's name; as BillCJ stated above, it is a description. These service weapons are commonly known by their designation ("M16", "M14", "M60", etc.) and officially known by a long designation (e.g. "United States Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16") which is not appropriate for an article's name. Therefore, the name for this article should be M60 machine gun, with the "machine gun" part only being added as a description, and to differentiate it from other articles of the same name (see M60). —Squalla 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is, of course, a descriptor and in text should not be capitalized unless it is part of the nomenclature. However, as part of the title, it should be capitalized. If you check most writing style guides, including some of the military ones, they recommend avoiding using m# nomenclature or numbers as the first word of a sentence/title because it can cause confusion as to why the letter is capitalized (m16 vs. M16) and result in the potential for number confusion when you have a period (in the case of text or a decimal) in front of a number. Capitalizing the first word of a title after an initial number when it is innappropriate to write out the number is the commonly accepted form.
And for reference:
Deathbunny 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not sure what the links are suppesed to show us. As for correcting the redirects to M60 Machine gun, you might want to wait till we get this settled. - BillCJ 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/6/0/Talk%7EM60_Machine_gun_496d.html"