Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "M60: Its Purpose, Mechanics, and Development" video.

@RonJohn63 Flimsy. It takes a tons of work just to keep them functional.
26
@RonJohn63 Always. In the '60 you were simply at risk of losing parts without noticing and remain with a useless piece of metal when you needed a firearm. "Fixed" this (the use of safety wire to keep the thing togheter alone, when even 19th century bolt action rifles used "click action nuts" that couldn't unscrew by themself, is a thing that cries for vengeance) you still had receivers that stretched beyond usability at 10-15 thousands round and, in the meantime, were held toghether by rivets that rarely arrived to that point without getting loose. To not say about the dozens ways the thing could be reassembled wrongly while seeming functional. You can go to the forgottenweapon site and read Kirk (former US Army armorer) posts for horror stories about the M60.
10
In the '50s there was no excuse for attaching the bipod to the barrel instead of the receiver. Any quick exchange barrel LMG design already figured at least that out since the late '20s.
7
@jamesmitchell1471 The lightness came at a cost. The MG is flimsy. The same receiver has a short lifespan and, for the time it lasts, it takes a lot of armourer's work to keep it running.
3
Already 19th century bolt actions had nuts that couldn't unscrew by themselves. Until the M60 it was completely obvious for any weapon designer. IE https://youtu.be/KCvIEioG9Y0?t=601
2
No, straight pull bolt action.
2
Most of times it seems they didn't fully uderstand what they were copying, like when they replaced the double set of pawls in the feed tray cover of the MG42 with a single one, with the result of the M60 not being able to pull the belt in against the slightest resistance, and often damaging the cartridges. Or like when they replaced the slightly angled locking lugs of the FG42 with straight angled ones, with the result that the metal-on-metal slam on closing invariably chipped the M60 locking lugs.
2
Nowadays an HMG is a 12-13mm machinegun, usually mounted on a vehicle. A MMG is a machinegun made for suppressive fire (so long bursts, that requires long belts and heavy barrels, to not hoverheat rapidly) from entrenched positions or vehicles. in NATO countries, MMG and GPMG are usually in 7.62 NATO. A LMG is a MG made to be carried by foot and used by infantry squads during the action, so it has to be lighter than the MMG, at the cost to not be used for suppressive fire (also because the gunner can carry a limited amount of ammos). In Nato countries LMGs can be in 7.62 NATO or 5.56mm NATO.
2
"not designed here"
2
They were too stupid to even copy. The FG42 derived bolt suffered of chipping locking lugs (the armorers were supposed to stone them. Yes, your locking lugs are falling apart, stone them) because the locking lugs were smaller than the original ones and cut at a straight angle, while the original ones, cut sligtly angled, didn't slam metal on metal on closing.
2
Cobalt, chromiun, tungsten steel alloy. Heat and wear resistant, but difficult to machine. Industrial cutting tools are made of that.
2
The second. In theory, with the legs closed, the gunner, or servent, was supposed to be able to grab the scorching hot barrel to swap it (already the fact that, in the middle of the action, he was supposed to close the bipod and extract the barrel, while the open receiver had to be laid down, on sandy or muddy terrain, because there was no more a bipod to hold it, demonstrates how retarded the design was. Any other LMG design sorted that out since the late '20s) In practice, asbestos gloves.
2
The M60's receiver is quite flimsy and kept toghether with rivets. At around 10-15000 rounds it's stretched beyond usability and the weapon has to be phased out.
2
@robertmoran7024 You can put it as close to the muzzle you want and STILL have it attached to the receiver (MG42/MG3 IE). The difference is that you can swap barrel without having to change your position, or that of the gun, at all, without having to lay your open gun on muddy soil, or invent ways to not have to.
2
It works. The M60 more or less worked in Nam because of nearly unlimited flow of spare parts and eroic efforts of the armourers to keep them running.
2
So, who is to blame?
1
"not designed here" And different regard for the MGs. Germans built their entire squad tactic around the MG. Brits built their entire squad tactic around the BREN (every rifleman was supposed to know how to use it and, if there were only one alive, he would have used the BREN). For the Americans, MGs were just support weapons for the riflemen. In the US Army squad, only two people were instructed in how to use the BAR (that was not even a real LMG, like the M1919A6 wasn't). In the post-war reports, they were almost surprised to know that, IRL, squads tended to gather around the BAR and almost every firing action was started by the BAR.
1
Just to say one, when Ian extracted the bolt, it was already assembled backwards. The plug should be ahead of the spring, not behind it.
1
"not designed here"
1
"not desiged here". To give a hint, after the M73/219 coaxial machinegun (probably the biggest POS that had been given the name of "machinegun") spectacularly failed, in the early '70s tests to find a replacement, STILL the M219 managed to end on top position, along with the M60E2 and the FN MAG and well above the MG3 and other beloved and battle proven designs still in service today. Leave out the two US proposals, and you have the real winner.
1
Had they correctly copied the FG2 bolt, whose bigger and slightly angled locking lugs close without slamming, no chipping would have occurred, but hey, what could the Germans know?
1
"designed by a committee".
1
Every other LMG design sorted that out since the late '20s.
1
Just to say one, when Ian extracted the bolt, it was already assembled the wrong way. The plug should be ahead of the spring, not behind it.
1
@zachdew9gaming985 IS a bad thing. US Army weapons are always locally manufactured. Is a procurement of every contract. What they were refusing were foreign DESIGNS, and that led to subpar designs like the M14 and M60 and POS like the M73/219 being adopted.
1
"not designed here". The FG42 at least took some idea from the Lewis Gun, so they could say "we didn't copy the Germans". In reality they managed to worsen what they copied. IE the FG42 bolt had big and slightly angled locking lugs. Who made the M60 didn't understand why, and made them smaller and cut at a straight angle. Result, the metal on metal slam on closing invariably chipped the M60 locking lugs, and the armorers were supposed to stone them to keep them functional. OR, they replaced the double set of pawls in the MG42 belt pull mechanism with a single one, with the result that the M60 can't pull the belt against the slightest resistance, and it's much more likely to damage the cartridges.
1
@jamesmitchell1471 The M60 had those problems from the first to the last gun assembled. Some of the other problems had been dealt with and, let's be very generous "fixed" (to "fix" the self-unscrewing gas nut with safety wire cries for vengeance), some other didn't (IE the many different ways you can reassemble the weapon the wrong way), but the receiver of the thing is simply stretched beyond usability after 15.000 rounds (provided the rivets are still in their place at that point). An FN MAG lasts for over 150.000 rounds. If you want to fix the flimsiness problem of the M60 you have to redesign much of the parts, and add those pounds.
1
It was a bad gun. It more or less worked, at the price of being exceptionally complex, mantenaince-intensive, and having many obvious design flaws (the most irritating ones being the ones that they changed from the designs they copied, only to make them worse), but it's difficult to point out a worse one that had been designed in the same period, and adopted by a major army.
1
@scottfoster2639 Yeah, any OTHER lmg sorted that out since the late '20s.
1
MG42/MG3 was made for practical combat. M60 was made for... hard to say. There are so many plain mistakes in the design of that weapon that's hard to list them.
1
Any LMG sorted that out since the late '20s.
1
It was the Blish lock of its days. IRL, for when the piston had moved those about 3mm necessary to close the ports, the bullet had long left the barrel and the pressure in it dropped to safe level. The system didn't offer any advantage over conventional ones, and had several disadvantages in return.
1
It had problems even when brand new. Practically the thing didn't last 15.000 rounds. An M240 lasts well over 100.000.
1
Yeah but, on the other hand, when they copied the MG42 belt feed, they did it wrong. It wasn't able to pull the belt vs. the slightest resistance, so the standard manuver to stop firing was just flipping the belt over the receiver.
1
To say one, when Ian extracted the bolt, it was already assembled wrong. The plug should be ahead of the spring, not behind it.
1
In reality is complex and useless. ;) It was the Blish lock of its days. IRL, for when the piston had moved those about 3mm necessary to close the ports, the bullet had long left the barrel and the pressure in it dropped to safe level, so it hasn't any auto-regulatory effect. The system didn't offer any advantage over conventional ones, and had several disadvantages in return, like the fact that it could be assembled in reverse. Really simple systems have one-piece piston/op-rod.
1
An easy win.
1
@PhilipFear M-60 broke down a lot because a lot of parts had been wrongly dimensioned. The MG3, or the M240, have ten times the expected life thus being simpler to service.
1
@milkyyanks765 The NATO equivalent of the PKM is the H&K 21, and derivates. It's practically just a belt-fed G3 with a quick exchange barrel, but it's lighter, simpler and more durable than the M60, and the barrel change is a breeze in comparison.
1