Talk:M60 machine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

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 expressed, 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)

Xin loi Viet Nam, its about a machine gunner in Vietnam, who flew on a gunship. he said "... Each ship carried an asbestos glove to wear when changing hot barrels, but I never saw anyone use one. After I burned my hands several times, melting my gloves into my skin while changing hot barrels, I learned where to grab the barrel. ...", so the part, in my opinion, about 'Loss of the glove was always a problem.' needs to be changed. Another book is Guns up by Johnnie Clark. He was a machine gunner in Vietnam.71.145.132.120 01:19, 19 April 2007 (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] AA-52 Comparable?

Is the M60 comparable in performance to the French AA-52?, I heard this somewhere but cannot remember where from. User:EX STAB

[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. yeah dude its nice to no your angry at some stuff but unless you no from personal experince be quiet. the m60 want that good of a wepon it could barlery do its just right and was a quick relpaclment for something.

[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] Belt-Fed FG42 Prototype?

I heard the US merged the MG42 belt feed with the FG42 paratroop rifle during WW2, Is there any images of it?User:EX STAB

[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)

I came specifically to this page to see if there were any pop culture references, and I was sorely disappointed. Who could forget the image of Rambo screaming will holding this weapon in one hand, blowing away all those new-fangled computers when he got back to the base. The best part about it is that it really happened.

[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)

Orphan control/what needs to be changed to move everything going to M60 Machine gun to M60 machine gun. Roughly half to three quarters of these links were originally directed at one or more redirects. At least, if you guys change the title back it'll be easier to re-fix, eh? Deathbunny 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M13 link

The type of disintegrating metal link used with the M60 should not be included in the lead section. The lead section generally describes the subject of the article, and the M13 link is the kind of specific information that should be added somewhere else in the article. Additionally, it is not a component of the machine gun per se, and any other ammunition link for the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge can be used in the same function. The belt is not an integral part of the weapon, and the model/type used may vary. —Squalla 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The M60 only works with the M13 link and is integral to how it functions internally. Other 7.62 belt systems did not work (unless it is simply re-dsignation of the M13 link design). That said, the information can be more concise for introduction. Ve3 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the M13 link the absolute only system compatible with the M60?
Either way, I don't think the lead section is the appropriate place for this information. The M13 link may be essential to the weapon's functioning, but so are, for instance, the magazines and clips of so many weapons described in other firearm-related articles, and yet I don't see many of them citing the type of feeding mechanism in the lead section. I could also be argued that (for example) the bolt is equally important to the M60's functioning, and therefore should be cited in the introduction as well—which I also think would be inappropriate. —Squalla 23:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
M13 is the only one that works, as no one has engineered a new but backward compatible system. Its inclusion is both to describe that it used m13 links and that the feed mechanism uses the m13 as the feed system- just as saying the round it fires implies the traits of its barrel.
Listing every trait in the introduction is of course not needed, but I think belt types for belt-fed firearms are as important as ammunition.
Unlike the bolt type, the links are not integral to the firearm (like the rounds)- however they are unique and specific to how the firearm was designed. Ve3 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If the lead section is cut down into an "Overview" section (like I did previous to your revert), the information can easily be added there without spoling the lead section with in-depth information. I understand and agree that it is important information, and I am all for adding it somewhere in the article, but I disagree that it is absolutely needed in the introductory sentence, or even the lead section at all.
If you do a quick Google search for "M60 machine gun", you will probably notice that the M13 link is rarely cited in most articles. However, if we break the (rather long) lead section into an "Overview" section (much like with the M16 rifle and others), it would be worthwhile to have the first paragraph (of the overview section) say something like "The M60 is an air-cooled, gas-operated machine gun firing from an open bolt. It fires 7.62 × 51 mm NATO cartridges from a disintegrating belt of M13 links." I think it would be more reasonable than how it is now, and the information would still be there, just two paragraphs under the lead. What do you think? —Squalla 01:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
For goodness sakes squalla its 8 characters, just leave it alone. As for the the other paragraphs in the introduction, yes, it is far to large and Ill cut it down to size myself right now. Ve3 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the amount of characters has anything to do with the debate here. I hope you can be reasonable enough to discuss this properly, as I have taken the time to reply to you and propose a compromise. If you are not concerned about the quality of the pages you edit, I certainly am. It's worth remembering that this article does not belong to anybody, and my input is as valuable as yours, whether you care about it or not. —Squalla 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The amount of space is important, because you expressed concerned with the amount of space, and conciseness of the introduction (as am I). I too have taken the take to the time evaluate all your arguments, the quality of the page, and the various aspects of the article and respond to them in kind. In fact, I actually evaluate your opinion above the average editor, due to our long track record of discussion and focus on firearms. As for your aboce suggested sentence I think it is fine, and well add it to the article. Ve3 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I have posted a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force; I hope you're okay with it. —Squalla 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that is a great idea. Ve3 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who's your daddy?

The M60's design shares mechanical similarities to the designs of the German MG42 and FjG42, especially the FjG42 (and the Lewis gun.).

However, in application, the M60 is clearly descended from the MG42 and (arguably) the Bren.

Prior to the M60's adoption, the US Army and Marine Corps made limited use of machine guns in at the platoon level, instead using essentially automatic rifles (M1918 BAR, Chauchaut, M1941 Johnson) in the squads, all characterized by (essentially) a one-man crew and magazine feed producing limited automatic fire. Compared to the medium machine guns in service, these weapons traded volume of fire for portability.

This loss of volume of fire was somewhat compensated for by the number and availability of semiautomatic weapons and the fire team concept of fire and movement within the squad. Power was built around the rifleman.

By comparison, the German infantry built their squads around the squad machine gun. Instead of moving in support of the riflemen, the riflemen defended the machine gun and furnished the squad the ability to hold ground. Power was built around the machine gunner.

The German method, ironically, builds more on the psychology of combat where crew-served weapons, especially those under supervision of an NCO, are much more likely to be fired and fired at the enemy in battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Rambo's machine gun?

Isn't the machine gun of Rambo in the second one?

Yes, He uses the M60E3 in first blood part 2, He used the standard variant in first blood. User:EX STAB

[edit] Other Varients

I recently ran across a copy of Small Arms of the 20th Century, 5th edition. inside there is a Maramont Light Machinegun. the weapon is a severly lightened M-60 machinegun. As I do not have a copy of that edition I was wondering if anyone did?Paulwharton

[edit] Typo?

"Additionally, the M60 uses a much simpler gas system that is, when care is taken during reassembly, easier to clean."

Doesn't the author mean the M240? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctica moon (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing language Replaced but in service?

Both this article AND the 7.62x51NATO article have confusing sentence structures in several places when talking about new replacements for these, while these items are still retained in the inventory and actual use.

Anyone up to cleaning the wording? --194.197.79.18 (talk)

[edit] Picture issue

The photo of the "OH-23 Raven" is not correct. The helicopter depicted is an OH-13. Both the OH-23 and OH-13 used similar skid mounted machine gun mounts. Macadam (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)