Jump to content

Talk:M60 machine gun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Military Galaxy Brain (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 7 June 2018 (→American Bias?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

m240 replacing the m60

actually the m249 replaced the automatic rifleman, with the m16a1 one man in each team was designated (AR) automatic rifleman and his rifle selector switch was allowed to be on full auto, with the switch to the m16a2 the the (AR) position was filled with the m249saw, there were still two m60 in each the platoon and the main guy in each m60 crew was designated machine gunner, for a total 2ea m249 per squad up to six, you will see army fm 7-70 showing infantry formations

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on M60 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M60 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Bias?

Considering the fact that the MG-3 wasn't invented until 1960 and the FN MAG 1958 compared to the M60 being adopted in 1957. Is it really appropriate to say that "american bias" was the only reason the M60 was adopted by the US military? Literally nothing at the time was being fielded in 7.62x51mm and it would be a pretty dumb move to mess up your logistics by adopting a German MG in 7.92x57mm or that French AA-52 which was only being produced in their native cartridge at the time. And then still use rifles in 7.62x51mm like the M14.

ThirstySexpert (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MG3 is just a copy of the earlier MG1, which is a redesignation of the MG42. You could very easily re-chamber existing stocks of MG42s into 7.62mm, it probably wouldn't even take more than a change of barrel, and bolt head. At most it would mean you'd have to re-size a few operating components to make sure they'd line up when chammbering the round; a 7.62 is very similar to a 7.92, only with a a slightly shorter case. No harder than changing M1919s into 7.62s, which they did with extreme ease. No, I think bias is probably a great explanation. Same reason they insisted on adopting the M14 when the FAL was every bit as good or better. Refused to adopt the .276 round. Etc. It wouldn't have been politically kosher to adopt German guns at that point, even if it was okay to adopt barely-altered rehashes using the same technology. Actually openly adopting the MG42/MG1/MG3 would be admitting that the Germans have a better gun than you do, and didn't we just defeat those guys? Also, if the MG42 is such a great gun, why were we sending our boys into combat in 1942-45, and 1950-53 with the M1919 when we could have used the MG42 instead? Now, a decade later you're telling us you've decided to adopt it? It wouldn't have gone over well.64.223.165.28 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The M14 was chosen over the FAL because it's generally more accurate and reliable. If you're talking about .276 Pedersen is an American round. The MG42/MG3 had a mtbf of less than 500 rounds (The M1919 was more around 2,000 and the M60 900), was less accurate, heavier and ergonomically terrible to the point you couldn't carry it after firing or aim it without using the bipod. and the first MG1 in 7.62 wasn't adopted until 1958. The FN MAG on the other hand literally didn't exist in 1957 when the M60 was adopted. Claiming bias is really just a hairbrained conspiracy theory by the ignorant. Military Galaxy Brain (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M60 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrible barrel change system with ridiculous asbestos glove"

I get a little tired of seeing scorn heaped on the M-60 for this: "you mean they actually issued it with a cooking mitt to swap the barrels with? Wow, what a terrible gun!", while the MG42 is praised up and down as one of the best guns ever made...and it used the exact same barrel change system, right down to the asbestos glove. The M-60 copied it almost directly, right down to the same locking lever. Biggest difference is that you didn't have to slide it out to the right and to the rear, because there wasn't a barrel jacket for a muzzle booster in the way. The Germans didn't seem to find the asbestos glove a problem, since they used it with great effect through the whole war and never even tried to change the system: soldiers aren't SUPPOSED to loose their equipment. If they can loose the asbestos glove, they might as well loose the cleaning rod, or the tripod. Since it may happen occasionally, you keep spares in the equipment depots, but the men who will probably depend on the gun to save their own lives will probably do a pretty good job of keeping after the important pieces. I suspect most of the complaints about this are from peacetime soldiers in training, who couldn't be bothered to keep track of a silly glove. In any case, one can chance a hot barrel using wet cloth, leaves, etc. Even dry cloth. Anything to keep the heat from your hands for a few seconds. Note that I say this all as it relates to the paragraph describing the "design flaws" of the M-60, not because I wanted to idly chat about the subject. I am just being unnecessarily long winded in explaining why I believe this is wrong, and accounts of this "terrible design flaw" are greatly exaggerated. I didn't delete the section because it is cited, I just changed it slightly, even though if the book that is cited is the one I think it is: "The Encyclopedia of Rifles and Machine Guns", it is full of mistakes and myths. I think that's the same book that claims "the M1 Carbine is the carbine version of the M1 Garand", among other things.

64.223.165.28 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is a different book that said that about the M1 Carbine; "The Illustrated Directory of Guns and Weapons". The "Encyclopedia" isn't much better though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.165.28 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:M60_machine_gun&oldid=844889719"