Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Firearms Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The photo of the "OH-23 Raven" is not correct. The helicopter depicted is an OH-13. Both the OH-23 and OH-13 used similar skid mounted machine gun mounts. Macadam (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely disorganized and messy article. I am going to attempt to clean it up as much as possible and reorganize it to be more consistent with other articles and less redundant. How many paragraphs about "firing 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges from a disintegrating belt of M13 links" do we need? The caliber (and usually feed as well) is literally mentioned at the beginning of every single section and subsection. The design and performance section is dedicated entirely to heavily criticizing every aspect of the weapon. I've already merged a few redundant sections. Some guy (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had been working on a sandboxed version in my userspace and brought the changes over, but someone moved the images in the meantime, and I think I screwed up my attempt to incorporate the images into the modified text. I am not sure about the best way to set up the images, but as WP:Manual of Style was cited, I think I should point out MOS suggests staggering images as I did before. Some guy (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that this page needs cleanup and structural organization. I would like to continue this effort and help to better this page by taking care of some of these issues. I will start a sandbox or sub page and will post a note to all when I do. Would appreciate feedback form my fellow history buffs and gun lovers out there! Ashur000 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Ashur000[reply]

About 90% of the text of this article is dedicated to criticizing the M60, presenting it as a horribly flawed weapon with almost no good sides. The article presents almost no history about service use of the weapon (say, Vietnam) and most of the history covering it being phased out of the military and replaced by the M240. I renamed the design details section to "design flaws" to reflect the current mood of the text that falls under that section; this is an inappropriately POV section that should at least be reflected by a suitable section heading. Some guy (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having used the M60 during many of my years in the US Army, it *was* a horribly flawed weapon. many of the problems are mentioned: flimsy sheet-metal stamped parts, putting the (heavy) bipod on the barrel rather than the receiver (so you had to tote around an extra bipod with each spare barrel), non-adjustable gas piston that could be assembled incorrectly (turning the MG into a single-shot), the need for safety-wiring of the gas system to prevent it from disassembling...

Unmentioned were the issues with the bolt and op-rod assembly beating themselves to death, the sear chipping and failing to control the bolt (resulting in a very dangerous "run-away gun"), the poor sights, the flimsy charging handle that was easily damaged, the bolt assembly that would disassemble itself and destroy critical parts during use...

Just about any soldier or marine who had ever used the M60 and then used the M240 (FN MAG) would agree with the tone of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.118.180 (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard and read similar things. I wonder why the hell they kept making new versions of it. Anyway, regardless, I think it's bad article form to only focus on the negative aspects of the weapon. It would be a lot better if the history section discussed the actual service use - more than half the history section is about it being phased out. Other than that there might not be much we can do about it, but it should at least have some sources. Some guy (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, please note, this is my first time using the talk page, so I do apologize if I am not using the proper technique or etiquette, or otherwise mucking it up, do feel free to let me know if I am erring. I felt the need to weigh in on this topic. Trying to look at this with an unbiased perspective, I frankly have to say, it does seem rather biased. The M60 is a fine weapons system in many regards, and though it certainly has its share of technical issues, this is true of a good many weapons still in use longterm use, for example the many issues with the M16/AR/Stoner Platform. Most notably Eugene Stoner's grave error is using the direct-impingement gas system. Does this mean the the entire concept is a useless piece of crap? Certainly not. The M60, in my view, is much the same deal. It has its flaws, but it still remains an excellent weapon. On a side note, I've heard from many of my service buddies still on active duty in the Corps that the Marine Corps is actually keeping many of the M60E3/E4's in service for the short term, especially in Afghanistan, and instead replacing the M249's in Iraq, as a short-term fix for the inadequacy of the 5.56 round in punching through hard cover in urban terrain. I doubt this would be the case if the M60 was really that horrible. I've carried and fired an M60E3 myself, in combat, on a few occasions, and while there are certainly other support guns that I would prefer over the M60, it is still a very effective weapon, provided one cleans it and performs maintenance at least as often as an M4/M16 (which is literally just about every moment you ain't in combat or on patrol, I'll grant). Oh, and one more note, @unsigned, I no have firsthand experience with E4 variant, but I understand that some of those issues were addressed with the latest iteration, and I can also state, unequivocally, that some of those issues were actually introduced with post-'Nam variants, as two of my relatives handled the original in Vietnam and found only the overheating and cleaning issue to be a serious impediment to it's combat effectiveness. ProudRedneck (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issues raised were in the MG42 but they were common for all GMPG class weapons of this era. As the lighter end of this group of weapons the M60 is less "robust" then the MG3 or M240 but there is always the trade between weight and reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.207.100 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is had for me to see the neutrality in this page and I would like to address this issue with some changes to the page. I have read many other weapon pages on wikipedia and this page baffles me, it is very negative, which is fine to show but no balance with any positives about the weapon. Is this article about the M60, it's history and its modern variants or is it about the products that FN sells/manufacturers and how it is trying to take the place of the M60? This is an M60 page right?Ashur000 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Ashur000[reply]

Apart from the neutrality issues, most of the criticisms of the device are totally unsourced. Even if a particular editor has experience with the weapon, reliable 3rd party sources are required for any appraisal. The section has been tagged for over 2 years now. If you have any interest in any of the text, please provide sources immediately to avoid it being deleted. 212.67.168.234 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states there was only a 0.7 inch difference in length between the two. Perhaps these are actually the same barrel but in one case someone rounded the length down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuslatrans (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assault barrel is heavier and fluted. They are not the same barrels. Both are listed on the US Ordnance website. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merger complete.