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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
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 fired both (my aunt had an FN), as well as the 240 along with vehicle mounted weapons. If you want to gauge my "experience", lets just say I would prefur to wear gloves instead of shrug off the hot brass landing on my hand, which rests upon the pile building up.

Oh yeah and if my weapon ever "took off", I'll twist the belt apart before any thing cooks further.


Also since we are at it, that plastic grip should be adequate. If you are ever up to contesting the concept please invite me and we will have a field day argueing.


But after all the shooting is done and over, the pints are on me for the first round.




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Advisor old son, again no slight intended but, I still fail to see how you can have the control necessary to fire a belt fed machinegun from the shoulder, in a CQBR environment, by grasping a forward mounted pistol grip.

Everybody knows, the most stable firing platform for the General or M60, is the prone position. It provides the most accurate fire and surely, that is what a GPGM is all about.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Fritz, prone is the best position
But there are situations where you can't fire from proned position, and other weapons are not available... yanks like to keep their options open on how to use their guns



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I still fail to see how you can have the control necessary to fire a belt fed machinegun from the shoulder, in a CQBR environment, by grasping a forward mounted pistol grip.

Everybody knows, the most stable firing platform for the General or M60, is the prone position. It provides the most accurate fire and surely, that is what a GPGM is all about.


Prone is the best, but not always an option.

Watch this video of a guy doing a CQB exercise with an M60 which he fires multiple times from the shoulder. And it also happens to have the pistol style forgrip which I would thing helps with control and accuracy tremendously when standing or running

video.google.com...

Surely if he can do that a professional soldier in peak physical condition would have no problems. You just have to be strong enough to hold it up without shaking, and handle the recoil.



[edit on 18-7-2006 by warpboost]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Yes its true that prone position is considered the best when firing accurately and presenting yourself as a smaller target for the enemy. However as the previous poster mentioned that its not always optional and sometimes you need to fire in standing or kneeling position and currently on the move.

www.youtube.com...

Heres a short video of a Navy SEAL handling the M60.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Not argueing with you on any thing, but don't knock it till you have tried it.

No one ever thought the .50 would be a man portable weapon system, but it is now. Took some tinkering but it finally found it's nitch. Besides would much rather have a box of belted 200 rnds with me than have to fuss with ammo changes.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I think there's a lot of differences of opinion from across the water. Front pistol grips are very rare in the UK, while it's very common place in the US. The front grip on a weapon never agreed with me, while many people swear by it.

Fritz (and I) both believe that the attachment of a fron grip on a machine gun is a waste of time, as it is catering for a job that the weapon is not designed for. We're not saying that it isn't used in this role, just that it's not common enough to warrant extra add-ons that increase the weapons weight and bulk. That's our opinion, and I don't think that any amount of arguing will change that.

I believe it's a difference of opinion on a very moot point.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I think the weight a front grip adds is negligible. I would rather have one than not. Just because its there doesnt mean to have to use it, but if it isnt there you can't use it should a situation call for it. It would be useful in CQB situations if for nothing else than to provide another grip and leverage point to hang the weapon around corners or over walls without fully exposing yourself.

If you watch that SEAL video where they are doing a center peel retreat you'll notice the 60 gunner has a forgrip. now the seals shoot a lot, and get to use pretty much whatever they choose and I bet that combination is the one that works the best



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
For some reason, everytime I see US weapons, I see weapons made in the 60s and 70s with a bunch of crap like scopes and lasers and forward grips attached to them. Nothing special.




But the Belgian M249 Paro is pretty nice.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I think the weight a front grip adds is negligible. I would rather have one than not. Just because its there doesnt mean to have to use it, but if it isnt there you can't use it should a situation call for it. It would be useful in CQB situations if for nothing else than to provide another grip and leverage point to hang the weapon around corners or over walls without fully exposing yourself.

If you watch that SEAL video where they are doing a center peel retreat you'll notice the 60 gunner has a forgrip. now the seals shoot a lot, and get to use pretty much whatever they choose and I bet that combination is the one that works the best


SEALs me old mate, are special forces. They are trained to use most type of weapons in a CQBR situation, whilst I cannot see the average Tom or Crow being put through hours and hours of CQBR training just to get them to fire a general purpose machine gun from the shoulder.

If you watch the news or film reports of militia groups anywhere in the world using GPMGs, you can see the total lack of control. Just watch the muzzle climb all over the place. Those rounds are being sprayed all over the place and you'd be really lucky to hit what you're pointing at.

As to those of you who say that modern assault rifles are not up to the job of CQBR, I totally disagree.

The M16A2/203 and the L85A2/203 and perhaps the L86A2 are ideal for CQBR ops and should provide anough fire support to allow your GPMG gunners to get to a fire position where they can provide accurate covering fire.

IMO, the GPMG should not be used as a 'point' weapon because in the assault, if the gunner is hit and goes down, your section or team will loose 75% of it's firepower.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I agree that an MG (LMG or GPMG) should not be used as a point weapon, even if you could sacrifice its firepower. When taking a room manouverability of a gun is the most important thing -> use a carbine or SMG.

One use we developed for our MGs in urban assaults was to use them simply through the walls in order to suppress enemies in the next room. Especially in buildings too weakly built to safely use grenades. and this can't be done proned.


Well, we don't have this problem in my platoon, only weapons in use are Rk-95 rifles and the 12.7 NSVT on top our APC (and of course APILAS')



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
For some reason, everytime I see US weapons, I see weapons made in the 60s and 70s with a bunch of crap like scopes and lasers and forward grips attached to them. Nothing special.


but the same could be said for Russian weapons




Here are 2 more videos of people firing M60s from the shoulder and even while on the move
Looks pretty accurate to me. Again provided you have the strength to hold it up without shaking I dont see why it would be worse than say a G3 or FNFAL running full auto, and actually its probably better in some respects since its a heavier weapon weight wise.

video.google.com...

video.google.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost

Originally posted by Russian soldier
For some reason, everytime I see US weapons, I see weapons made in the 60s and 70s with a bunch of crap like scopes and lasers and forward grips attached to them. Nothing special.


but the same could be said for Russian weapons




Here are 2 more videos of people firing M60s from the shoulder and even while on the move
Looks pretty accurate to me. Again provided you have the strength to hold it up without shaking I dont see why it would be worse than say a G3 or FNFAL running full auto, and actually its probably better in some respects since its a heavier weapon weight wise.

video.google.com...

video.google.com...


WOW
FN FAL ON FULL AUTO EH? FN FAL was a heavy barrelled rifle capable of automatic fire, much along the the same lines as the US Browning Automatic Rifle.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost

Originally posted by Russian soldier
For some reason, everytime I see US weapons, I see weapons made in the 60s and 70s with a bunch of crap like scopes and lasers and forward grips attached to them. Nothing special.


but the same could be said for Russian weapons




Here are 2 more videos of people firing M60s from the shoulder and even while on the move
Looks pretty accurate to me. Again provided you have the strength to hold it up without shaking I dont see why it would be worse than say a G3 or FNFAL running full auto, and actually its probably better in some respects since its a heavier weapon weight wise.

video.google.com...

video.google.com...




Well, the AKS-74M was way different from the AKM, but you are a bit right.

Then again, there is also the new AN-94. Russia can only arm Spetsnaz with those right not, but when the budget goes up, maybe the army will start getting them.



The M-60 is past its prime, I think the FN M-249 PARO is better. Remember, the AK-47 had a 7.62mm (or somethin like that) bullet while the AK-74 had a 5.6mm and the AK-74 was better. Its not always that way, but when a weapon is replaced, the replacing weapon is usually better


Then again, the M-60 has been modified alot, making it better then the "pig" of the Vietnam days.


I gotta go fire them both, then I can make a SERIOUS opinion about which one is better.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join