Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Veteran's Forum' started by run away gun, Jan 17, 2006.
When did the military replace the M-60 E3 ?
Only the USMC and the SEALs have adopted the E3 and a few years back the USMC did away with it in favor of the M240G and the US Army fielded the M240B, both are based on the M240 that was mounted on armored vehicles, which dated back to the FN MAG-58.
There's still a few around, I hear the SEALs have kept a few. Standard M60s are still hanging around, we've got a few in our armory still.
What did the Army use for a machine gun before the M240B? I could have swore it was the M60 Echo 3 but it may have been the Delta 60.
dont know about anyone else, but army avition used delta 60's we JUST, as in less than a year ago, got our 240's
I went through ITS at Camp Geiger in early 86, and learned the M-60E3. Deployed to Okinawa in July 86, we had old model 60's. When we returned to Geiger, was issued E3's. In my opinion, the only improvements the E3 had over the older model were being able to close the feed tray cover with bolt forward or to the rear, and having the bipod legs on the receiver vs the barrel.
There are quite a few still around in the reserves and guard. My unit has several.
This is the US variant of the Belgian MAG machinegun. The first personnel models (as opposed to vehicular versions) appeared in the hands of US Marines in 1994; by 1996, all M-60s in US Marine service were replaced by that model of the M-240, known as the M-240G. Despite it being close to a huge weapon for a GPMG, it has proved to be extremely rugged and reliable and the Marines are fond of it. The US Army, noting these attributes, asked that a forward handguard be added and called it the M-240B; it is otherwise the same weapon.
In early 2000, improvements were made to lighten the M-240, resulting in a reduction in weight of 1.36 kg.
Twilight 2000 Notes: This weapon did not have much of a chance to be adopted; the Marines only replaced about half of their M-60s with it, and the Army got almost none. The lighter version does not exist in any case in the Twilight 2000 timeline.
The US Army never adopted the M60E3. The real attribute of the E3 was that it was about four or five pounds lighter than the standard M60 thanks to a much skinnier barrel and some other weight reductions. As gruntmedik said, they redesigned the feed tray cover so that it can close when the bolt is in either forward or rearward position and still works.
The M60D is simply an M60 with the spade grip and the O aerial rear sight.
Two more cents:
As a former rotary-wing aircraft armament/avionics/electronics maintainer, I always take great interest in any helicopters flying around (saw a Marine Super Cobra [Whiskey model] flying cover over a "Frog" the other day!). Most of the slicks I see flying around (now Kirkush, several weeks ago Samarra and Tikrit AO) sport M60D's. On one or two occasions I've seen the a/c version of the 240.
There is another diff between the G and the B; the B (and N) has a hydraulic buffer whereas the G does not. This drastically changes ROF when adjusting gas regulator. Check your tech manual. I'll double check when I get back to my room.
Correct, the buffers in the spade grips and stock are different resulting in a much higher ROF with the spade grips.
Odd you see so many, we see mostly 240's but we're farther north and in an all army section.
"": left feeding coax
"C": right feeding coax
"B": Army ground use from bi/tripod M-122A1 (Not w/Flex Mount!); w/bipod, heatshield, sights, hydraulic buffer in buttstock, carrying handle, M-1913 rails mounted on forward end of receiver
"G": Marine ground use from bi/tripod M-122 (w/Flex Mount); w/bipod, sights, buttstock, carrying handle
"D": helo apps; sights, spade grip, carrying handle
"E1": pintle mount on various armored vehicles; sights, spade grip
"N": mount on watercraft; sights, hydraulic buffer in buttstock, carrying handle
All have a buffer but "B" and "N" have hydraulic buffer. Flex Mount has two shocks in it. Shocks combined with hydraulic buffer results in "failures to cycle." So Flex Mount not authorised for B (or N). B should be shot off "normal" pintle.
ROF: all but B & N: 650-950rpm. B & N: 600-650rpm. Regulator adjustment not to increase ROF but to maintain it during degraded ops.
Ref all above: TM 9-1005-313-10, SASC-Anaconda.
Saw some more M-60's today. BTW, when I saw most helos using -60's around Samarra it was before 101 took over. Left Samarra AO right after 101 RIP'ed and where we are now we hardy ever see a helicopter!
I carried an M60 in 10th MNTN in the mid 90's for 3 years.We did not have any Echo 3s in the Infantry that I ever saw. They were just introducung the 240s when I left . I think they had the 240G, but I dont think it had handguard or any fancy furniture.
The M60 GPMG, as far as I know, has been fielded in the US Army since 1957, when it replaced the M1919 .30 cal MG on the inventory.
Standard M60 GPMG with extended bipod.
Marine carrying an M60E3 while lugging with a slave cable. Looks to me like he's having more problems lugging the cable around that he does lugging the '60. ;f
The M60E3 was adopted by the USMC and US Navy; it differs from the original M60 in that it has a receiver-attached bipod which easily deploys for stability. It has an ambidextrous safety, universal sling attachments, a carrying handle on the barrel, and a simplified gas system that does not require safety wire to prevent loosening. However, the light weight barrel was not safe for overhead fire and was not capable of sustaining a rapid rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute without catastrophic failure of the barrel.
The reduction in weight resulted in firing limitations and a loss of reliability that severely restricted the use of the weapon in the Fleet Marine Force. Consequently, troop acceptance of the E3 has been very poor. This gun will be replaced by the M240G.
I was on an M60E3 gun team from about 95-98. We didn't get the M240G until early 98' after we came back from WestPac. It was a fine weapon, accurate and rugged, just alot heavier than the M60E3. As far as the M60E3 goes, all of ours were 100% percent reliable and never had a problem with sustained fire of eight to ten round bursts, of course you had to do barrel changes here and there, but it was and is still a great weapon.
I worked with the M-60E3 when I was in 3/6 back during my Corps days and I loved it. True, the lighter barrel meant having to change it out more often and you weren't cleared for overhead fire but that was it's only shortcomings and you learned to work with it. It was light enough to hump around without too much of a problem and could in an emergency be used like an overgrown M-249 in a heavier caliber. Not once did we ever have a gun just fall apart or wind up getting put together wrong or not work like a lot of folks claim. Makes me wonder if they had first hand expereince with the old Echo 3 or if they are just parroting war stories. ;Q
Today I'm Air Force reserve and we have the M-240B. Funny thing is we've never fired live ammo through them (my AFSC is a cop so yes, we should be firing them and not on the FATS machine) because of barrel explosion problems. We are allowed to use them for combat use but until further notice, they will not fire any live ammo during training. However, now we are looking at a seriously heavy pig weighing in at 27.9 pounds unloaded where the old M-60E3 weighed only 18.75 pounds unloaded. Nope, wouldn't want to hump that cast iron ***** around anywhere on my back! I have a prior Army air assault bubba in my flight that has had expereince with the M-240B and he claims they never had a problem with them as far as malfunctions go other than the access cover tabs tend to bend and break off. It is a more simple weapon than the old E3 and if you can work an M-249, dealing with the M-240B doesn't require a steep learning curve.
Personally though, I would just as soon take my old Echo 3 over the new 240 Bravo any day. It's lighter weight and shorter length make it a bit easier to carry and if you want a heavier barrel on it for sustained fire, the barrel from the old M-60 will fit (check the headspace first though) and function just fine. Just don't ask me how I found out that little detail.
The E3 feedtray had improvements that I don't think a lot of people recognize. The spring loaded cam guide didn't just allow you to close the cover with the bolt forward, it also was more "forgiving" for some reason in the operation of the cam/feed pawls. Prior to Desert Storm our division maintenance unit had an E3 feed tray for evaluation. We had one of our 60's in for repair, and when the tech wasn't in the room we swiped the E3 feedtray. over the year and a half I had that gun with the E3 feedtray on it, I had zero malfunctions, as opposed to the 3-4 round burst/jams with the previous feed tray. It got to the point where I would be called up to shoot with other platoons at live fires because their guns were constantly down. You could literally switch the feedtray between malfuntioning guns and viola, they'd work.
In the end one of our Lt's shot his mouth off at battalion about how great my gun was, and the BCO had my feedtray confiscated, right off the gun, as it was a "non Army issue" piece of equipment. The feedtray they replaced it with, of course, jammed. Other than doing a live fire demo with my E3 feedtray compared to the POS they put on it for the BN/BGD brass showing how absolutely STUPID it was that we dind't have these on our guns, I never saw it again.
My personal opinion is they should have just kept the M-60 in service and put E3 feedtrays on every damn one of them.
Same here. Joined later in 86. Geiger was roughly October of 86. Okinawa in 88. Was also a participant in "valiant blitz" in Korea. I was a 0331
2nd Marines. 2nd Mar Div
Our unit was later disbanded and we went to 2/6. As part of that ceremony. We were given a French forage on our uniforms. (Green rope looped over/under shoulder.
I was 0331 with Charlie 1/8