Worst Pieces of Crap II: Machine Guns - Page 2




 
--
 
February 6th, 2006  
DTop
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezblackgun
The M60 was pretty bad, though the new version seem to work well.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...yContent=86313
I saw nothing on that site about the m60 at all. What experience do you have with that mg? I have used it in combat many times and have no complaints about it except maybe that I wish the barrel life was longer. I have also fired it competitively while part of various mg teams, all good and you?
February 6th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Hello DTOP

Well your more of an expert than I, but wasnt another problem with the M-60 its weight? 23 Pounds plus the weight of all the ammo is quiet a load to carry espically in hot places like Vietnam. Its like carrying a 20' CRT monitor around in combat, (I'll pass).

BTW whats your fastest time changing out a barrel?
February 7th, 2006  
DTop
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Hello DTOP

Well your more of an expert than I, but wasnt another problem with the M-60 its weight? 23 Pounds plus the weight of all the ammo is quiet a load to carry espically in hot places like Vietnam. Its like carrying a 20' CRT monitor around in combat, (I'll pass).

BTW whats your fastest time changing out a barrel?
Heavy? I guess that's all a matter of your frame of reference. The way we looked at it back then was the M60 was a light mg, it packed more power than an M16 and was a lot lighter than a .50 cal. BTW, a shirt was too heavy to carry in that place but you wouldn't leave home without one. BTW the ammo wasn't just carried by the gunner, the load was spread around the squad or at least one other guy.
I don't remember how long it took me to change out a barrel but I do remember it was inversely proportional to the amount of bullets coming my way
As an infantry scout in Vietnam and although I did carry the m60 from time to time (we all took turns) after a while, what I carried most often was either a thumper or a good old 12ga. scatter gun.
--
February 13th, 2006  
Dean
 
 
DTop, I have to agree that the M-60 was not the worst out there for one reason. If I had to carry a Chauchat or an M-60, there would be absolutely NO hesitation on my part.
The reason that many people disliked the M-60 was because it's reliability was often called into question, and at the time M-60 was adopted, the MAG-58, which that became the M-240, and the MG-3 were available. But, the US Army wanted to buy American, and the M-60 was the result. Some were good... some not so good. Its replacement, the M-240, had none of its problems.
Well, as usual, the learned members of Military-Quotes ahave come up with some truly memorable contenders. Now in the interests of fairness, I try to use one standard. In all probability, was the use of this weapon responsible for the deaths of the soldiers who had to use it. The answer for the Chauchat and the Namba is yes, so they are both contenders. I will declare the Chauchat the winner for one reason. The Namba may well have caused problems, but I remain uninformed of them as the Japanese of WW II were not given to complaining about much. As a result, we know very little about how many Japanese soldiers fell victim to their own weapon. The Chauchat is another matter entirely. We ALL know ALL about the Chauchat, and has become a gold standard lesson in how to avoid saddling yourself with a lousy weapon. It's too bad that some people (are you reading this Robert S McNamara???) never read about it.

Thanks to all who entered their "favourites"!

Next up?? Tanks.

Dean.
February 16th, 2006  
masterblaster
 
there was one worse machine gun than the chauchat in *mm lebel, the same thing in 30/06. the magazines even had open sides so the mud could jam it before the action jammed on it's own.