M60E4 The Ultimate Machine Gun?

www.usord.com...

M60E4/Mk43 Mod1 light machine gun series represents the latest improvements to the M60 Series of machine guns. The M60E4/Mk43 Mod1 features a redesigned machined aluminum top cover with an integrated Picatinny rail and an aluminum Rail Interface System handguard provides for Mounting Optics, Infrared Laser Systems and other sensors giving the weapon 24 hour capability. Several 850 round continuous fire reliability tests have been performed by Special Operations Personnel to include: SEAL Team Eight, Special Boat Team 20 and U.S. Army SF 5th Group.

MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS

Durable aluminum RIS forearm assembly
Machined aluminum RIS feed tray cover
30% improved belt pull, increasing reliability.
Thick-walled barrel for sustained firing.
Fail-safe reversible piston, positive-lock gas cylinder extension.
Barrel changing handle eliminates need for heat mitten.
Lightweight, one-hand operated receiver mounted bipod eliminates the weight of a bipod on the spare barrel.
Lightweight forearm/pistol grip for improved control and protection during firing.
Feed cover eliminates charging jams and improves operator safety.
Lightweight trigger assembly with ambidextrous safety switch and winter trigger guard allows gun to be fired with winter mittens.
New flat spring on trigger assembly prevents accidental detachment of the assembly.
Lightweight buttstock with hinged shoulder rest and improved buffer attachment mechanism provides for fail-safe attachment of the buttstock to the receiver.
Forward grip enlarged for improved control, better heat protection.

Even though its a couple of years old, the reliability is far better than the previous M60s. I was thinking it should be a good choice for its ability to have the stopping power for the troops in the field compare to the U.S. Army SAW. The 5.56 just don't have the penetrating power against obstacles where insurgents hide behind or against even cars where many insurgents in Iraq use. The M240B is good and was adopted by the U.S. military, but I wonder how it compares to the M60E4.

M60s basic structure makes it less reliable than FN-MAG (m240), so i just cant't understand why someone would like to spend time and effort upgrading a desing of M60 when better weapons are readily available COTS.
I'd consentrate more on upgrading the MAGs in US invetory (most of them all ready have picantinny rails etc.) with the accessories used on this E4

I have toying with an idea of .380Lapua Mag LMG, that would be a genuine ipmrovement over the 7.62 MGs, but still considerably lighter than .50cals

Get some Get some!

The Pig.

the M60 is Huge, I'd rather use something lighter and more compact, but i do like the extreme firepower it puts out.

The paint on the Aluminum receiver cover probably still wears off in about a week, the pistil grip is probably still rubber coated (soldiers always loved to pick it off in small pieces), and the action is still a copy of the WWII MG34 (I think that was the designation).

It's just a heavy 7.62mm design that has solved some of it's earlier problems, but probably not all of them, I prefer the FN Minimi in spite of the lesser caliber.

What with the optics, the laser designator, and maybe a light attachment, plus the weight of 7.62x51mm ammo, I would not want to have to lug this monster and its baggage train around in the field.

Just my $0.02

Originally posted by Retseh
What with the optics, the laser designator, and maybe a light attachment, plus the weight of 7.62x51mm ammo, I would not want to have to lug this monster and its baggage train around in the field.

the minimi weighs 7.1kg while the m60e4 weighs 10.2kg which is 3kg more for the m60e4 which isnt really that much for all the extra added features (scope, laser, light) plus the increase in caliber.

justin

Excuse me for asking but, as one who has humped around the boonies with the General, why on earth do you need a light [torch] on a machinegun?

I understand the night sights, I just about understand the need for a laser [a spotter is, IMHO, still better with Mk 1 eyeball or binos] - but this light business is beyond me.

Originally posted by fritz
Excuse me for asking but, as one who has humped around the boonies with the General, why on earth do you need a light [torch] on a machinegun?

I understand the night sights, I just about understand the need for a laser [a spotter is, IMHO, still better with Mk 1 eyeball or binos] - but this light business is beyond me.

Who knows, maybe we may not need tracers on the machine gun ammo when the gunner can use the laser to direct other troops as to where he is firing at. But the problem is if he ran out of power.

Well my boy, when I was the General's gunner, I was taught that tracer indicated the fall of shot. Indeed, when I became a Skill At Arms Instructor, I also passed on this knowledge.

I have seen plenty of pics where US Troops use LMG gunners (SAWs and MAGs) as point man when they enter a building, so maybe that's why they need lights in LGMs. (Don't ask me why they go in with LMGs, since i'd prefer SMG or a carbine in those situations)

Originally posted by northwolf
I have seen plenty of pics where US Troops use LMG gunners (SAWs and MAGs) as point man when they enter a building, so maybe that's why they need lights in LGMs. (Don't ask me why they go in with LMGs, since i'd prefer SMG or a carbine in those situations)

Yeah, I agree. In may day, you sent in the 'thickest' guy with an auto to sweep the room after the grenade - or if you really hated him, just as you threw it in.

No seriously.

Why use a General? I have visions of through and throughs! Rounds don't tend to stop after hiitng bone and flesh and walls - even 5.56 milly.

Originally posted by fritz
Well my boy, when I was the General's gunner, I was taught that tracer indicated the fall of shot. Indeed, when I became a Skill At Arms Instructor, I also passed on this knowledge.

True, it is meant for to check the trajectory of the rounds you fire, but it also to include as to zeroing in on the enemy. And of course it can remind you that you are almost running out of ammo.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by fritz
Well my boy, when I was the General's gunner, I was taught that tracer indicated the fall of shot. Indeed, when I became a Skill At Arms Instructor, I also passed on this knowledge.

True, it is meant for to check the trajectory of the rounds you fire, but it also to include as to zeroing in on the enemy. And of course it can remind you that you are almost running out of ammo.

So true, my friend. Happened to me a few times. But I still don't get the light!

Originally posted by fritz

So true, my friend. Happened to me a few times. But I still don't get the light!

Why are you fussing over this Infrared Aiming Light? Its design to help the gunners in the field for precise aiming at night.

Also to add, as long as terrorists and insurgents don't have NVGs then we don't have to worry about it.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by deltaboy]

Deltaboy, please forgive me for being thick.

I understand the weapon in question can be equipped with Night Sights.

Is the I/R light to replace them or what?

www.defensereview.com...


At the bottom of the page is a video that says a lot about the new wep sys.

Originally posted by fritz
Deltaboy, please forgive me for being thick.

I understand the weapon in question can be equipped with Night Sights.

Is the I/R light to replace them or what?

No, it was never intended to replace them (infrared is not the same as night vision anyways), its suppose to work in concert with night vision devices as a beam of light at night.

Uh huh. Gotcha but.................................

IR is detectable on the modern battlefield. So okay, your average terr don't have this kit, so it's probably fine to use it against them.

I have used IR [ambush light], Thermal and also IWS/CWS and PNVG. I prefer the IWS/CWS as they have a better field of vision and are not as cumbersome as the PNVG which also have the drawback of both perception [depth of field [range]] and tunnel vision.

I suppose that I'm just an old fashioned sort of guy, not wanting to lug extra batts, power packs and all sorts of crap when using the General, but I suppose to each his own.

Originally posted by fritz

I suppose that I'm just an old fashioned sort of guy, not wanting to lug extra batts, power packs and all sorts of crap when using the General, but I suppose to each his own.

Well I'm sure you may like this one. Its combining both thermal and nightvision into as one.

peosoldier.army.mil...

Well Delta, thanx for the link.

I gues I'm still an old fashioned squaddie. Those images leave a lot to the imagination [or not].

I do agree with the concept, but those images are at the very end of the scale. Does the equipment come with a 'zoom' focus or is that it? IMHO, I would like to see better clarity at 150 metres.

Have you seen any of the newer digital lenses or is that the limit of the tech currently available to US squaddies?