It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

M60E4 The Ultimate Machine Gun?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz

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.


Well from the information I have seen provided by the peosoldier, it don't seem to have a zoom in zoom out option. It says it could see 300m, but 50% probability. But its not a night sight anyways.


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


Haven't heard of those.

I'm going to check it out to see what improvements there are.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by deltaboy]




posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I don't know... looks lik a lot of "toys for the boys" to me.

Sticking a load of optics/lights/lazer aimers etc on to a suppressive fire weapon (which the M60 is) seems like a complete detraction from the primary goal of such a weapon system - to put a large number of rounds in a large area to suppress the enemy in order to allow the riflemen to close in on and kill them. Optics etc just reduce the field of vision, and increase the weight of the system. I think if you ask fritz, he'll tell you all about carrying thie weight of a machine gun and 600-800 rds of 7.62mm 4bit without all this cr@p!



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Well said Paddy.

It occurs to me that the US DOD is following Hollywood's dreams by procuring more and more exotic weaponry.

By that I mean why on earth would you want to mount a pistol grip on the front handguard, to enable to weapon to be fired from the shoulder, in the standing position or kneeling posn?

Apart from not being in total control of the General, it is a fully automatic weapon that at the very best, should be fired in the SF Role supported by a tripod or at worst, in the light role supported by a bipod.

I just do not believe people who say you can provide accurate automatic fire from either shoulder, even if firing from a standing and supported fire position, using a front mounted pistol grip. Even if you use the sling, your rounds will just go all over the place, as there is no control.

Sheer lunacy and fantasy.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
It will make a great version of a heavy SCAR-L, and for CQC & CQB. sure others may disagree and nit pick on some details but it will be an obvious and largely mutual agreement in the affirmative.



Here I was thinking the M60 was being sold off as junk in the surplus dealerships, this new and very beneficial variation will prove most outstandingly with the Landwarrior system.




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Advisor old son, have you ever fired an M60 or The General [FN MAG]? I ask not to belittle you in any way, but rather to guage your experience of General Purpose Machine Guns.

I have taught Skill At Arms [weapon handling] training for over 20 years and was also a Section Gunner for seven and a half years.

During my training to become an instructor, we fired the General from all known firing posns: prone, sitting, squatting, kneeling and standing.

Only when we fired from the prone or sitting posn did we have complete control over the weapon and that was because the bipod was used.

As to the General being used in house clearing, with the gunner having a large cumbersome weapon at best, it is hard to envisage him [or her] jumping and diving though doors and windows yet being able to provide sustained support fire.

I'm afraid my friend, that a $10 plastic handgrip will not produce a more accurate gunner in any event, let alone the fast and fearful mele that is OBUA.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
At least 7.62x53R PKM can be fired relatively accurately from shoulder (short bursts), but has anyone fired Both PKM and M60 for comparison, i've only used KvKK 62 in 7.62x39 and the PKM...?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
At least 7.62x53R PKM can be fired relatively accurately from shoulder (short bursts), but has anyone fired Both PKM and M60 for comparison, i've only used KvKK 62 in 7.62x39 and the PKM...?


What do you mean relatively accurately from the shoulder?

Anybody who knows the Theory of Small Arms Fire, will know the Marksmanship Principles that state:

1. Position and hold must be firm enough to support the weapon;

2. The weapon must point naturally at the tgt without undue physical strain;

3. Sight alignment [aiming] must be correct;

4. The shot must be released and followed through without disturbing the position.

If you fire a GPMG from the shoulder, you rule out # 1 through 4, therefore you cannot possibly shoot a GPMG from the shoulder and be accurate. Period!

The other thing is, when a weapon is fired on full auto, because Rule 4 is not adhered to, the muzzle starts to climb up to the right so that, apart from maybe round #1, all the other rounds fired are just being converted to empty cases.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
As i said relatively accurately... and short bursts.
Meaning that if you fire 4-5 round hits at a man sized target from 150m most will hit the target... Alltough rifle would be much more effective, but situations arise when you'll have to take out point targets fast... Firing from the hip much harder, since the you have no sights and in longer bursts the gun starts to twist around your wrists.

Kvkk 62, being a SAW equivalent in 7,62x39R can be effectively fired from hip and the shots will remain in the target sectror.

But anyhow fritz ever shot a PKM, just for a reference?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
As i said relatively accurately... and short bursts.
Meaning that if you fire 4-5 round hits at a man sized target from 150m most will hit the target... Alltough rifle would be much more effective, but situations arise when you'll have to take out point targets fast... Firing from the hip much harder, since the you have no sights and in longer bursts the gun starts to twist around your wrists.

Kvkk 62, being a SAW equivalent in 7,62x39R can be effectively fired from hip and the shots will remain in the target sectror.

But anyhow fritz ever shot a PKM, just for a reference?


I just U2U'd you mate.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I think the M240 is a better setup. One interesting thing I have heard about the M60 is that it's feed mechanisim and trigger assemby are taken rate from the infamous MG42 post WWII



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I think the M240 is a better setup. One interesting thing I have heard about the M60 is that it's feed mechanisim and trigger assemby are taken rate from the infamous MG42 post WWII


Yup. The best machinegun of WWII. Then the Yanks went and
it up, and it became the M60.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by fritz]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
There is an advantage that no one here has mentioned. This new M60 has the ability to fire continuasly. This is the video that I found from the armed forces journal, M60E4 firing 850 rounds with one pull of the trigger.. I think that that gives the gun a great advantage.

[edit on 7-15-2006 by muzz]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Wow muzz thanks for posting that. They fire 850 rounds through the M60E4 with 1 pull of the trigger, 1:45 of continuous fire


I bet an M240 can do the same. the 240 is the coaxial machine gun used in the Bradley, M1, LAV etc.. and is replacing the M60E3. In fact you might even argue the 240 could sustain long periods of continuos fire better than this M60 since it weighs several pounds more.

From what I can gather the M60E4 is a lighter more mobile medium machine gun alternative to the M240

[edit on 15-7-2006 by warpboost]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
There is an advantage that no one here has mentioned. This new M60 has the ability to fire continuasly. This is the video that I found from the armed forces journal, M60E4 firing 850 rounds with one pull of the trigger.. I think that that gives the gun a great advantage.


No, it doesnt give it an advantage. Even while 850 rounds may be unordinary as a number, this has little practical value. First, who on earth has 850 rounds linked together for a machine gun? Not even airplanes. It´s totally unpractical for any kind of machine gun use. Besides, when would you ever need to have 800+ continuous shots fired... against what enemy? Battles arent fought with rigid and exposed firing lines anymore that you could mow down with that kind of ammunition.

Second, I wonder whether you can even STOP when you shoot as much as that. Any round left in the chamber is likely to cook off. So basically once you went as far as 200 and more rounds, you need to waste all the rounds left in the belt to prevent this.

Third, you will most likely ruin the barrel. And it will be warped decreasing the acurracy massively long before you have chewn through the whole 850 round belt. It is also well possible that the heat may damage the weapon itself, and you´ll need a long time to actually let it cool down again so it can be piccked up and moved/used again. You can also hear considerable effects of fouling later in the video. The ROF slows down and it goes out of rhythm... not really a good mechanical sign.

In short: with a proper barrel you might be able to shoot as much as that from any quality machine gun... but you simply would never do it.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I can see your point, but in the video I notice considerable lag between the video and sound towards the end. While I can see that firing 850rnds has no battlefield advantage, the evaulator says that the gun can shoot 15,000rnds before the barrel needs to be changed. I would think that to mean that you can get 15,000rnds before the barrel warps or becomes unusable. Now I'm not in the military, nor do I have any military experiance. But I do deal alot with guns. I think that if I was a solider, I would like the knowledge that I have a gun that not only fires a more powerful round, but can fire more of that round. Now I'm not trying to argue the differances of 5.56 and 7.62mm rounds. But each round has something that it is better for, and I see the 5.56mm round perfect for the assault rifle or smg, but the enhanced penetration and energy transfer of the 7.62mm round would be more fitting for a support weapon such as the M60E4. -muzz



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I think the point was that hundreds of rounds can be fired contionously if need be.


The barrel is good for 15K rounds, but not all at once
I doubt it would get past about 1500-2000 before something happened
maybe more, but not 15K!

If I could pick anything I would take a M249 SAW and rechamber in 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel
and then alternate some exotic armor piercing rounds and liquid metal rounds
that would have almost the same power as a 7.6 and be more accurate but in a 10lb lighter package


[edit on 15-7-2006 by warpboost]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I think the point was that hundreds of rounds can be fired contionously if need be.


The barrel is good for 15K rounds, but not all at once
I doubt it would get past about 1500-2000 before something happened
maybe more, but not 15K!

If I could pick anything I would take a M249 SAW and rechamber in 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel
and then alternate some exotic armor piercing rounds and liquid metal rounds
that would have almost the same power as a 7.6 and be more accurate but in a 10lb lighter package


[edit on 15-7-2006 by warpboost]


Good point, I am not very versed in 6.8mm or 6.5mm. I'd have to do some reasearch on these calibers. I have just never been a fan of the M249 SAW. I have a frind in the Marine Corps that is a SAW operator and he despises the thing. I have always loved the M60. I guess it just comes down to a personal preferance.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I would suggest that there are a great many advantages of being able to fire a load of ammo in long bursts. Some of you seem to think that there are no battles that require sustained fire any more. This is just what was thought in 1982, until the Falklands campaign kicked off. During all of the main battles, several thousand rounds were put through each of the battalions' SF machine guns, effectively suppressing the enemy for long periods. It got to the stage that so much ammo was being used by these weapons that it was being resupplied using the bucket of a "liberated" JCB digger on continuous shuttle runs. This fire support was a major factor in this campaign, often deciding who won the battle.

By the way, the machine guns in question were GPMGs (FN MAGs), tripod mounted and fitted with C2 dial sights and standard barrels.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by PaddyInf]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
You are of course correct Paddy, but our friends across the Pond insist that the pistol grip on the front hand guard, is there to provide a stable firing platform for using the M60 (E4[?]) from the shoulder in a CQBR environment.

I think they still have the Peace Through Superior Firepower mentality, where you hose down first and ask questions like, 'Where's my resupply?' when they run out of ammo.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
The vertical grip helps in CQB but an MG is not something you want for CQB... It's good to be able to shoot from shoulder incase of a quick situations, but to have something attached to your gun for odd situations is a bit foolish, especially because you can shoot the short burts from the shoulder "well" enough without them.

In a Carbine the vertical grip is good because it allows the shooter to better absorb the recoil and fire follow-up shots/multiple targets if needed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join