MG34/MG42/MG3 vs PKM

[Forgetful Coyote]

Obviously not sniper rifles, but these GPMG's are all old designs.. and yet to this day very viable weapons still considered some of the best GPMG's ever made. What would yall say is the better between the two? How does the M60 and 240B fit in the discussion?

Also wonder yalls thoughts on the Ultimax with its constant recoil system and if it lives up to its reputation?

 

[Son of Dorn]

When the M60 was fresh and new... it still wasn't quite as good as the PKM, or the MG-42/MG-3, for that matter. And it unfortunately only got worse because maintenance on them was shite up until the most recent variants went into production. That said, if properly maintained and kept fresh, especially the newest ones, the M60 is still an effective machine gun and US special forces folks still do use them to this day alongside some of the other options.

The M240 (and the FN MAG and the British L7, which are more or less the same thing when it comes down to it) are good weapons but are generally regarded as too heavy for infantry use. Vehicle-mounted or stationary is fine, but they're less portable. That's part of why the Mk 48 was designed; special forces needed a 7.62mm GPMG that was lighter and more man-portable than the M240 they'd been using as a temporary replacement for the outmoded M60E3/E4s, and was more reliable than the M60 too. Thus the Mk 48 was developed from the M249/Mk 46 SAW.

If we're talking about NATO vs Soviet here, we can nudge the 34 and 42 aside for a minute and focus on the 7.62 options. If I was given the choice, I'd pick an MG3 over a M60; and I'd probably pick the MG3 over a PKM for one big reason: The PKM feeds from a non-disintegrating belt and the MG3 can feed from the same disintegrating belt as any of the 7.62 NATO GPMGs. If you don't want to deal with a belt sticking out of both ends of your gun, the NATO guns have an advantage. The PKM is lighter than the NATO ones, though, which means it'd be less unpleasant to carry over distances; the MG3 isn't exactly a single soldier's weapon and neither is the M60. They can be used that way, sure, and the newer M60s are geared towards that, but original stock configuration? They were a two-man weapon like their WWII progenitors while the PKM could be handled by a single man somewhat easier.

Buuut there's one you haven't mentioned: The Vektor SS-77. It's South African and basically is a NATO-fied PKM. It looks like a PKM, it acts like a PKM, but it eats 7.62 NATO and is compatible with the disintegrating belt so you don't have to worry about that, either. It's lighter than the MG3 and M60, more man-portable and easier to fire from the shoulder, too.

 

[Kamerad]

When the M60 was fresh and new... it still wasn't quite as good as the PKM, or the MG-42/MG-3, for that matter. And it unfortunately only got worse because maintenance on them was shite up until the most recent variants went into production. That said, if properly maintained and kept fresh, especially the newest ones, the M60 is still an effective machine gun and US special forces folks still do use them to this day alongside some of the other options.

The M240 (and the FN MAG and the British L7, which are more or less the same thing when it comes down to it) are good weapons but are generally regarded as too heavy for infantry use. Vehicle-mounted or stationary is fine, but they're less portable. That's part of why the Mk 48 was designed; special forces needed a 7.62mm GPMG that was lighter and more man-portable than the M240 they'd been using as a temporary replacement for the outmoded M60E3/E4s, and was more reliable than the M60 too. Thus the Mk 48 was developed from the M249/Mk 46 SAW.

If we're talking about NATO vs Soviet here, we can nudge the 34 and 42 aside for a minute and focus on the 7.62 options. If I was given the choice, I'd pick an MG3 over a M60; and I'd probably pick the MG3 over a PKM for one big reason: The PKM feeds from a non-disintegrating belt and the MG3 can feed from the same disintegrating belt as any of the 7.62 NATO GPMGs. If you don't want to deal with a belt sticking out of both ends of your gun, the NATO guns have an advantage. The PKM is lighter than the NATO ones, though, which means it'd be less unpleasant to carry over distances; the MG3 isn't exactly a single soldier's weapon and neither is the M60. They can be used that way, sure, and the newer M60s are geared towards that, but original stock configuration? They were a two-man weapon like their WWII progenitors while the PKM could be handled by a single man somewhat easier.

Buuut there's one you haven't mentioned: The Vektor SS-77. It's South African and basically is a NATO-fied PKM. It looks like a PKM, it acts like a PKM, but it eats 7.62 NATO and is compatible with the disintegrating belt so you don't have to worry about that, either. It's lighter than the MG3 and M60, more man-portable and easier to fire from the shoulder, too.

Go on.

 

[ZG47A]

When the M60 was fresh and new... it still wasn't quite as good as the PKM, or the MG-42/MG-3, for that matter. And it unfortunately only got worse because maintenance on them was shite up until the most recent variants went into production. That said, if properly maintained and kept fresh, especially the newest ones, the M60 is still an effective machine gun and US special forces folks still do use them to this day alongside some of the other options.

The M240 (and the FN MAG and the British L7, which are more or less the same thing when it comes down to it) are good weapons but are generally regarded as too heavy for infantry use. Vehicle-mounted or stationary is fine, but they're less portable. That's part of why the Mk 48 was designed; special forces needed a 7.62mm GPMG that was lighter and more man-portable than the M240 they'd been using as a temporary replacement for the outmoded M60E3/E4s, and was more reliable than the M60 too. Thus the Mk 48 was developed from the M249/Mk 46 SAW.

If we're talking about NATO vs Soviet here, we can nudge the 34 and 42 aside for a minute and focus on the 7.62 options. If I was given the choice, I'd pick an MG3 over a M60; and I'd probably pick the MG3 over a PKM for one big reason: The PKM feeds from a non-disintegrating belt and the MG3 can feed from the same disintegrating belt as any of the 7.62 NATO GPMGs. If you don't want to deal with a belt sticking out of both ends of your gun, the NATO guns have an advantage. The PKM is lighter than the NATO ones, though, which means it'd be less unpleasant to carry over distances; the MG3 isn't exactly a single soldier's weapon and neither is the M60. They can be used that way, sure, and the newer M60s are geared towards that, but original stock configuration? They were a two-man weapon like their WWII progenitors while the PKM could be handled by a single man somewhat easier.

Buuut there's one you haven't mentioned: The Vektor SS-77. It's South African and basically is a NATO-fied PKM. It looks like a PKM, it acts like a PKM, but it eats 7.62 NATO and is compatible with the disintegrating belt so you don't have to worry about that, either. It's lighter than the MG3 and M60, more man-portable and easier to fire from the shoulder, too.

It is my understanding that you have to lengthen the receiver of a PKM, as reportedly done by the Poles, in order to use rimless ammunition.

 

[Son of Dorn]

Go on.

Anything in particular you'd like me to add? I could mention the HK21 as a better Infantry Automatic Rifle in its mag-fed configuration and a suitable GPMG in belt-fed...

@ZG47A The Poles worked on a prototype NATOfied PKM for a while that necessitated a redesign of the feed tray and bolt, but the project was abandoned in favor of designing a new version that became the UKM-2000. That does appear to have a longer receiver but I'm unsure if that was a result of the rimless cartridge or something else.

 

[Kamerad]

I could mention the HK21 as a better Infantry Automatic Rifle in its mag-fed configuration and a suitable GPMG in belt-fed...

Perfect.
MGs represent such a pivotal technology in the 20th century, and I have only a casual understanding of them. Fire from open bolt, I understand that.

 

[brianf]

just to add a bit.

the m60 was a poor copy of the MG42. they tried to improve and screwed up the bolt lugs making them uneven.

MG34 cost to much to make and the tolerances were to tight for dirty warfare.

 

[Son of Dorn]

just to add a bit.

the m60 was a poor copy of the MG42. they tried to improve and screwed up the bolt lugs making them uneven.

MG34 cost to much to make and the tolerances were to tight for dirty warfare.

They also fucked up when changing the barrel. MG42 = barrel, just the barrel, and nothing but the barrel. M60 = barrel, flash hider, front sight, bipod, and part of the gas system. Changing the barrel in combat was pretty easy for the '42 and a nightmare for the '60.

 

[shoobe01]

From US Army reports that led to making the M60, from engineering discussions and analysis, from a few people who have fired several of them: The PK is a hell of a gun. Light, rigid, reasonably easy to use (load etc). Even still updated, more so than even the otherwise very nice MAG 58, which has for backwards-compatibility issues been stuck in time in many ways.

But the PK has never been offered in anything but 7.62x54R, has an odd belt pattern so adapting would apparently be a LOT of work, and has some iffy (or maybe just Russian) ergonomics and optics mounting.

The HK11/21/etc is apparently awesome... for a bit. Somewhat too based on a rifle to last apparently. Flex and so on. I could have been lied to but purportedly that's why special forces types don't carry the HK belt feds so much anymore.

Mk48 seems like a very good choice for lots of folks, not sure why we don't issue it more. Basically the Minimi before it got messed up with the backup magwell, and dropped to 5.56. A lightweight, small 7.62 belt fed that everyone who uses it seems to like.

There are newer guns than that even. Even in 7.62 there's stuff like the HK121 (MG5), actually issued no less so it seems to work.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

I’d really like to see the KAC LAMG get adopted. It uses a constant recoil system too, apparently it’s fckn awesome to shoot

 

[Huskydriver]

Never seen a 240b jam in combat or training.... Love that mg its so simple to operate/ tear down and put together. Barrel changes are pretty easy. Grateful I never had to hump one though.

Seen many an Afghani pkm and rpk go down but not a fair comparison.

 

[TheGerman]

All you need to know.

 

[Mr.BR]

When you need to lug the MG around day after day PKM is the best by leaps and bounds , weighs considerably less than MG3 or M240 its closer to SAW , basicaly offsets about 100rounds of ammo .

Polish or Israeli clone with disintegrating link belt and soft pouch would be preffered altough old Rimless cartridge is here to stay and features best internal balistics design of any service cartridge , Lapua factory regards 7.62x53R as inherently more accurate round than 7.62x51 and with heavy bullets longer ranged as well

Polish UKM 2000P

 

[RyanScott]

It is my understanding that you have to lengthen the receiver of a PKM, as reportedly done by the Poles, in order to use rimless ammunition.

That has something to do with tripods I thought.

The GPMG concept is outdated and disappearing. And good riddance

 

[Son of Dorn]

That has something to do with tripods I thought.

The GPMG concept is outdated and disappearing. And good riddance

How is it outdated and disappearing?

 

[RyanScott]

Look at trends in both adopted and proposed machineguns. Various nations adopted ARs and LMGs like the Minimi/M249/Mk48. The Russians have a 6mm. The US proposed a 6mm. Various commercial solutions have been presented in 6/6.5mm and 8.59mm. There’s a growing divide between machineguns meant to be hard mounted and those meant to be carried in the squad or platoon. The idea that one gun will do all infantry tasks is dead.

 

[shoobe01]

Worth explaining more since the GPMG term is not often explained, I have seen folks assume it means something specific, maybe "lighter than medium": The General Purpose Machine Gun is purportedly literally general purpose, a do-everything gun. Everything from LMG (maybe auto-rifle) to mounted MMG in one gun.

The M60 was sort of the height of the GPMG concept, and came out of the same brain trust that insisted the M14 would replace everything from M3 to BAR (and extended into hoping the F111 would be a naval fighter, and so on). Wish I had kept that onesheet, but that's real. They really thought that the M14 could be an SMG, a rifle, and an AR

Instead, armies are slowly letting individual classes be optimized to do their own thing. In the MG world:

• Auto rifles are rifles much of the time, feed from the same ammo/mags as the squad usually, are just a bit heavier and should be employed for small scale base of fire, etc.
• Light machine guns MAY be on the downswing, in favor of the auto rifle. There's some overlap and if we shift calibers good luck making these distinctions, but 5.56 belt feds are pretty heavy and fussy for the bullets they throw
• Medium machine guns are generally (today) .30 caliber full power guns, like the MAG, Mk48, Negev, MG5, SS77, etc.
• Here we get complex again, as for portable vs tripod/vehicle mounted we MAY be coming to an inflection point where the heavier guns like the MAG will be retained as fixed/mounted guns, but lighter ones will take over for portable tasks. I don't know if anyone has a designation aside from weight. The titanium MAG58s and some modern guns are slowly shifting that way, and stuff like the LWAMG point to an even snazzier future for a squad level MMG.

 

[Son of Dorn]

Look at trends in both adopted and proposed machineguns. Various nations adopted ARs and LMGs like the Minimi/M249/Mk48. The Russians have a 6mm. The US proposed a 6mm. Various commercial solutions have been presented in 6/6.5mm and 8.59mm. There’s a growing divide between machineguns meant to be hard mounted and those meant to be carried in the squad or platoon. The idea that one gun will do all infantry tasks is dead.

If a machine gun was designed and produced in 8.59mm, or .338 Norma, whichever you like, that would still classify as a medium machine gun/GPMG. Which is in the name: General Dynamics Lightweight Medium Machine Gun. And it would be used alongside the squad-based weapons as a replacement for the M240, I'm sure, in the same role: For reaching longer and hitting harder against targets that the M249 or whichever over 5.56 LMG can't work as well against without necessitating lugging around an M2.

As for the idea of a single gun doing all infantry tasks, I don't think that's existed for a long time. For a basic soldier, yeah, his assault rifle is going to be like everyone else's assault rifle, but on the squad/platoon level you still have individual weapons that fill needed roles, from shotguns to grenade launchers to machine guns. The US military relearned a long time ago that the M16/M4 wasn't going to cut it in every task, so they reintroduced the M14 as a "battle rifle"; the SCAR-H has received a warm reception from the Special Forces community in that regard as well and other militaries use it and the HK417 for the same reason (i.e., the 5.56 has its limitations that the 7.62 surpasses without being too heavy). And now there's suggestion that they want to switch over their 7.62 guns to 6.5 Creedmoor for the better ballistics without much of a parts change. Because of that, I disagree with the notion that eliminating the GPMG concept would be a good idea or even that it's happening. They have a requirement on the battlefield, whether it's 7.62 NATO, 6.5 Creedmoor, or .338 Norma.

@shoobe01 I more or less use the term GPMG and MMG to mean the same thing in modern terminology, because the distinction is now so very much muddled: 1-2 man per gun, bigger bullet than the 5.56 but not as big as the .50, intermediate range and power, suitable for both infantry and mounted use. From a historical standpoint, the German MG34/42 was closer to the "General Purpose Machine Gun" concept vs the "Medium Machine Gun" concept exemplified by the US' M1919s: It was man-portable and single-man-fireable, could feed from either a unlimited belt or a shortened one kept in a drum fitted to the weapon for squad use, but it also worked well as a vehicle-mounted weapon. The biggest difference was that back then, you only had two options for a cartridge: Normal-big (standard rifle cartridge) and extra-big (.50-cal). Maybe things were a bit better back then...

But as I said, I don't think we're going to see a decline in use of guns like the M240, Mk48, PKP Pecheneg, or whatever others are out there any time soon. There's no reason to get rid of them, they still serve a requirement, and I reckon that sooner or later someone would decide to reintroduce a GPMG/MMG into the mix the way they did with the M14/SCAR-H/HK417 long after it was decided (perhaps somewhat foolishly) that the 5.56 would be the default infantry cartridge. After all, the Russians decided that the 5.45 would be their new default but they certainly never stopped using the 7.62x39 and are still bringing out the newest AK variants in both calibres because they still fill a required role.

 

[Strykervet]

All you need to know.

View attachment 7175095

No shit, so true.

 

[TorF]

I was explained the difference of the MG34 and MG42 in this way by a Waffen SS veteran with 3 years active service on the eastern front. He was one of my instructors in the Norwegian NG in the early 80'ies.

The teoretical test was this: make a grid like a chess tray of 8x8 1m squares. Set up one soldier in each square, 64 soldiers total. Set up a firering position app 80 - 100 m away with all soldiers facing a camoflaged mg. With the MG42@1350+ rpm all soldiers can be taken out within 2seconds with a 50 round belt. Soldiers have app 1 sec reaction time and 1 sec diving for cover. With MG34@850rpm the rof is too slow to get good coverage and some soldiers would have time to dive for cover and continiue fighting after the initial 2 sec ambush. It is worth noting that an important factor is the heavy 198gr 8mm bullet penetration performance. This can now be duplicated in 308/7,62NATO with the Nammo ammo loaded with 170gr Lapua Lockbase in a MG3 with a "speed nozzle" to get 1300rpm+. The extra performance in an ambush is very important if one consider that any survivior needs an additional 30000 rounds to take out if Vietnam statistics are used.

In addition the MG42 is the best mg in a defecive position taking down frontal assaults. It's very difficult to get through two MG42 set up propery in crossfireing positions. We are now talking about taking out hundreds of enemies in a couple of minutes. Not uncommon on the eastern front. Any other mg have a too slow rof and enemies will get through as proven by MG34 performance.

Ps, I can't imagine how a Minimi/SAW would perform in a "chess play test" considering rof and 5.56NATO penetration performance.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Unless someone posts 5 shot groups, the whole argument is pointless...

“Only accurate machine guns are interesting“— Townsend Whelan

Sirhr

 

[TorF]

Well, I've used accurized, scoped MG34s in a long range role for airbase defence. Fitted with matchbarrels in 308win and 6.5x55. Outperformed the then current 7.62NATO sniperrifles, including the SSG69, with "first burst" hits beond 1000m.
The 6.5 was a very unofficial conversion with dropin parts..

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Chauchat for the win!

 

[Conrad101st]

I heard all this noise about M60s being unreliable, but really thought that they worked great when I had them as a PL in Korea (1990) and the 101st (91 - 92). Never an issue with jamming. I thought they were almost as good as titties.

 

[RyanScott]

The Germans conceptualized MGs differently and to good effect. There is something to say for a high ROF. For instance if you fire at 550rpm or 1200rpm down a streets and a squad runs across it the performance will be dramatically different. The downside is reduced time for the same weight of ammunition.

 

[Son of Dorn]

Chauchat for the win!

Lol fuck the Chauchat. Get a Johnson. A guy can have a lot of fun with a Johnson.

 

[pmclaine]

How has the introduction of the IAR into the Marine Fire team to replace the SAW worked out?

I am unable to grasp the idea of a mag fed auto being better than a belt fed unless the belt fed was such a piece of shit it suffered constant stoppages and if that were the case you find another LW belt fed.

Thats a ton of squad firepower to perform tasks like Squad assaults and fire team rushes....3 supporting belt feds, 3 grenadiers, 6 riflemen, 4 people tasked with leadership and the other 9 trained/expected to step up if necessary.

The svelte, stick appearance of the MG34 belies its 27 pound weight. Its all machined steel with tight engineering.

If it will actually feed and fire reliably that Knights LAMG does look attractive at 9 pounds dry but will it hold up to sustained use without any mass to take the heat?

Its like that problem of there being three options to provide the perfect thing but you are only allowed to choose two of the three options.

 

[pmclaine]

The teoretical test was this: make a grid like a chess tray of 8x8 1m squares. Set up one soldier in each square, 64 soldiers total. Set up a firering position app 80 - 100 m away with all soldiers facing a camoflaged mg. With the MG42@1350+ rpm all soldiers can be taken out within 2seconds with a 50 round belt. Soldiers have app 1 sec reaction time and 1 sec diving for cover. With MG34@850rpm the rof is too slow to get good coverage and some soldiers would have time to dive for cover and continiue fighting after the initial 2 sec ambush. It is worth noting that an important factor is the heavy 198gr 8mm bullet penetration performance. This can now be duplicated in 308/7,62NATO with the Nammo ammo loaded with 170gr Lapua Lockbase in a MG3 with a "speed nozzle" to get 1300rpm+. The extra performance in an ambush is very important if one consider that any survivior needs an additional 30000 rounds to take out if Vietnam statistics are used.

US Army performed that test in real time at liberating Dachau.......

Looks like 3 SS men chose the lucky seats that were timed perfectly to the extraction cycle of an M1919.

 

[Son of Dorn]

How has the introduction of the IAR into the Marine Fire team to replace the SAW worked out?

I am unable to grasp the idea of a mag fed auto being better than a belt fed unless the belt fed was such a piece of shit it suffered constant stoppages and if that were the case you find another LW belt fed.

Thats a ton of squad firepower to perform tasks like Squad assaults and fire team rushes....3 supporting belt feds, 3 grenadiers, 6 riflemen, 4 people tasked with leadership and the other 9 trained/expected to step up if necessary.

The svelte, stick appearance of the MG34 belies its 27 pound weight. Its all machined steel with tight engineering.

If it will actually feed and fire reliably that Knights LAMG does look attractive at 9 pounds dry but will it hold up to sustained use without any mass to take the heat?

Its like that problem of there being three options to provide the perfect thing but you are only allowed to choose two of the three options.

I was under the impression that the Marines were fielding the M27 as a replacement for their M16s after trying them out as SAW supplements. So I guess they liked them well enough.

The only advantage I see to having a mag-fed automatic rifle as a supplement to a belt-fed LMG is that they become less immediately distinguishable to the enemy as a machine gunner. Well that and if everyone else is carrying mags of 5.56 it's easier to redistribute ammo if necessary. Not so easy to do with a belt. The SAW has that feature but I've heard it tears the feed lips up like hell. In the case of a single squad or fireteam I can see the appeal of everyone carrying a mag-fed gun with, say, three guys with short-barreled M4s or Mk 18s and the fourth with an IAR. It's faster, lighter, and easier to exchange mags between people. I wouldn't go for any IAR as a full replacement over a LMG, though.

 

[pmclaine]

Im kind of wondering if the M27 was a means to end end.

The USMC wanted suppressors, piston guns avoid some suppressor issues impingement guns suffer, lets introduce a piston into the sytem, than lets get everyone that gun and suppressors.

Just my tin foil theory.

I can understand the camouflage of a rifle looking AR but something sweet about a 200 round belt that is not answered by 7 mag changes.

 

[RyanScott]

The 416 is harder to run suppressed than DI. There’s a reason the SF 556K became the 212 and the Norwegians has to ban soldiers from bringing suppressors from home as they choked the 416N. The 249 on mags is shit. Guarantee one stoppage per mag. The Mk46 program was right to delete that feature.

 

[Son of Dorn]

@pmclaine The Russians at least used 75-round drums with their RPKs, so that makes their IAR equivalent more useful. I think the Marines had a requirement for using those 100-round double-drums but since they were considered unreliable, that was dropped and yeah, seven 30-round mags =/= one 200-round belt. Does kinda seem more like a "We just wanted an excuse to have a 'cooler' gun for everybody!" thing now, just a tiny bit.

 

[RyanScott]

It would be easy to adopt 40 round PMAGs. Is that enough fire in the squad? I don’t know I’ve never been an infantryman, but the ones I know are split on it. In particular the big army guys I know like to be able to go cyclic with a SAW and use the whole belt. SOF guys have the M4A1 to use like an IAR—all of them—but stick to semi almost exclusively. Some question the utility of 5.56 on belts or in general belt fed weapons without tripods. SOF will often use a scoped rifle from an SBF position.
One thing is beyond question. The things the Army of 1918 knew about machinegunnery have been lost to time in this military and that is a loss beyond measure. The Marines as least have an MOS for it. The British use leadership of MG teams as a key developmental position for NCOs.

 

[pmclaine]

It would be easy to adopt 40 round PMAGs. Is that enough fire in the squad? I don’t know I’ve never been an infantryman, but the ones I know are split on it. In particular the big army guys I know like to be able to go cyclic with a SAW and use the whole belt. SOF guys have the M4A1 to use like an IAR—all of them—but stick to semi almost exclusively. Some question the utility of 5.56 on belts or in general belt fed weapons without tripods. SOF will often use a scoped rifle from an SBF position.
One thing is beyond question. The things the Army of 1918 knew about machinegunnery have been lost to time in this military and that is a loss beyond measure. The Marines as least have an MOS for it. The British use leadership of MG teams as a key developmental position for NCOs.

When you need auto weapon fire you want AUTO WEAPON FIRE!

It has a particular purpose for an infantryman and it cant be replaced by mag changes.

Machine guns were originally awesome as a weapon to use to fire on troops in defilade. It was an indirect fire weapon to bring rain upon an enemy you could not hit with direct fire.

The infantry now has other options, plentiful mobile mortars, M203, MK23, air on call, artillery. We are a very resource rich military. Our need to use machine guns indirectly is not so necessary any more.

For a squad the Auto Fire is to quickly kill in ambush or to create fire superiority to break contact or better attack through an enemy.

 

[shoobe01]

I heard all this noise about M60s being unreliable, but really thought that they worked great when I had them as a PL in Korea (1990) and the 101st (91 - 92). Never an issue with jamming. I thought they were almost as good as titties.

Well maintained and well-operated apparently they work a lot better. They were very, very prone to getting worn from abuse. Pull the trigger gently, and the sear gets chipped off from the bolt flying past it, then no longer works eventually. Slam the receiver cover on reloads and you can mess up the latch, or bend the cover other feed parts, which make it unreliable. Even over-aggressive punching pins in and out loosens them and the retainers.

And, could be put together wrong, so wouldn't run, could be cleaned wrong (e.g. immerse in cleaner and it fills the buffer and bad things happen), etc.

One of many personal tales: Friend of mine was on a live fire EX in the swamps of GA, sneaking along in the dark as best they can, when he hears a plop rapidly followed by very loud noises. He was issued a very beat up M60 from local stock that day (he was a rifleman, filled in on this) and the trigger group just fell off. There's nothing to hold the bolt back so it starts firing. And firing. He keeps the bullets from striking his squad, while someone next to him tries the twist-the-belt thing, fails. He finally stuffs it into the swamp floor until it sorta blows itself up from clogged muzzle, but not long before the whole damned belt had run it's course.

Everyone on that PLT hates the M60, and will never get over it, I am sure!


Probably would be seen as a brilliant perfect gun if only 800 were issued to special forces, and a few SF types I know who carried them sometimes indeed had no problem, even miss the relatively light weight of later versions compared to M240s, but as a mass issue gun, it had problems. Not soldier-proof.

 

[Son of Dorn]

One of many personal tales: Friend of mine was on a live fire EX in the swamps of GA, sneaking along in the dark as best they can, when he hears a plop rapidly followed by very loud noises. He was issued a very beat up M60 from local stock that day (he was a rifleman, filled in on this) and the trigger group just fell off. There's nothing to hold the bolt back so it starts firing. And firing. He keeps the bullets from striking his squad, while someone next to him tries the twist-the-belt thing, fails. He finally stuffs it into the swamp floor until it sorta blows itself up from clogged muzzle, but not long before the whole damned belt had run it's course.

As a Georgian, I can assure you that our environment here can be a bitch and a weapon like the M60, if it wasn't well-maintained (which your friend's was definitely not), would have all the same problems as it did in Indochina once upon a time. We have tropical bush, we have swamp, we have coastal salt marsh, we have nice open fields. More than one movie has used GA/SC as a substitute location for Vietnam, and I hear that our coastal tropical bush has been called the closest match some of the vet advisors had ever seen.

As for the trigger group just falling off, yeah, that was another of the many design flaws in the M60. It uses a spring-leaf clip, not captive pins, to hold it in place and if the spring weakens or shears or otherwise fails and you don't have zip-ties or baling wire or something to hold it in place? Bye-bye trigger group!

 

[sandwarrior]

When the M60 was fresh and new... it still wasn't quite as good as the PKM, or the MG-42/MG-3, for that matter. And it unfortunately only got worse because maintenance on them was shite up until the most recent variants went into production. That said, if properly maintained and kept fresh, especially the newest ones, the M60 is still an effective machine gun and US special forces folks still do use them to this day alongside some of the other options.

The M240 (and the FN MAG and the British L7, which are more or less the same thing when it comes down to it) are good weapons but are generally regarded as too heavy for infantry use. Vehicle-mounted or stationary is fine, but they're less portable. That's part of why the Mk 48 was designed; special forces needed a 7.62mm GPMG that was lighter and more man-portable than the M240 they'd been using as a temporary replacement for the outmoded M60E3/E4s, and was more reliable than the M60 too. Thus the Mk 48 was developed from the M249/Mk 46 SAW.

If we're talking about NATO vs Soviet here, we can nudge the 34 and 42 aside for a minute and focus on the 7.62 options. If I was given the choice, I'd pick an MG3 over a M60; and I'd probably pick the MG3 over a PKM for one big reason: The PKM feeds from a non-disintegrating belt and the MG3 can feed from the same disintegrating belt as any of the 7.62 NATO GPMGs. If you don't want to deal with a belt sticking out of both ends of your gun, the NATO guns have an advantage. The PKM is lighter than the NATO ones, though, which means it'd be less unpleasant to carry over distances; the MG3 isn't exactly a single soldier's weapon and neither is the M60. They can be used that way, sure, and the newer M60s are geared towards that, but original stock configuration? They were a two-man weapon like their WWII progenitors while the PKM could be handled by a single man somewhat easier.

Buuut there's one you haven't mentioned: The Vektor SS-77. It's South African and basically is a NATO-fied PKM. It looks like a PKM, it acts like a PKM, but it eats 7.62 NATO and is compatible with the disintegrating belt so you don't have to worry about that, either. It's lighter than the MG3 and M60, more man-portable and easier to fire from the shoulder, too.

Okay, first you would have had to carry one and shoot it for thousands of rounds to know the difference between bullshit propaganda and how they actually worked. The M60 is a slightly modified variant of the M42 machine gun. It has had the rate of fire slowed down by about half. I carried and fired the M60 machine gun a lot. If you go back and read history in Viet Nam, you will see that the M60 was VERY reliable and depended upon by the troops in Viet Nam. The battle of Ia Drang in November 1965 is notable. And there everafter in Viet Nam and other conflicts. The gun was used in many roles during that and other conflicts, and it seldom failed when utilized by an experienced gunner.

The two guns not really responded to are the MG34 and MG42. Look at their history in WWII and you will see we had a ton of respect for them. So much so, we pretty much copied that design as the basis for the M60. They didn't jam, they did their job. About the only problem with the MG42 was it fired too fast and went through barrels like no yesterday. That and Hitlers F'd up idea that it be used as an assault weapon (read up on German Squad tactics and you'll see) made it less effective than it could have been if used as a support weapon. Nothing like changing barrels in the middle of a gunfight, instead of behind the main assault where it is doable. So, not so much the gun as the dumbass 18 levels back micromanaging the war.

I haven't carried or fired the M240. From what I understand from the people who use it, it's a good weapon. Better than the M60 according to those I knew who have fired both in combat. That's good enough for me to say that's a weapon I would go with. However, from what I understand the m240 and M249 are just scaled differently. I did not like the M249 and I know many over the years who don't either. Again, this is coming from those who have fired it. So, it leaves a little doubt in my mind how good that series is.

The only thing I ever did with any of the combloc machine guns is fire them on a familiarization range. We fired some of them a lot . Others, not so much. They typically reminded me of AK's in that they function well, but hard to lay down a tight beaten zone at some distance. In an all-out assault on your FOB, I think they would do alright. They didn't jam on us, unless someone wasn't doing something right. The Soviets had reliability as a priority over accuracy. Today's Russian still prioritizes that way.

Our version of reliability tends to gravitate towards "better maintenance". Which is impossible during a firefight. But, if well maintained, can keep reliability high. That is until the fight becomes extended. Then it becomes an issue. Fast, expedient maintenance helps. The M16 family and M60 family benefit from this.

In the end, it has to work 99% of the time. Relative accuracy is what is needed.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

GPMG definitely ain’t dead. Germany just picked up the MG5. And Army has that retarded program NGSW to replace 5.56 weapons with 6.8x51 running 75000+ psi 130gr .277s @ 3000 FPS from a 13” barrel. Basically trying to get 24” .270 Win performance from a 13” .27-08.. Obviously not gonna get adopted(I hope!) but just an example that big Army definitely still wants a hard hitting squad and/or platoon level belt fed.

 

[RyanScott]

When you need auto weapon fire you want AUTO WEAPON FIRE!

It has a particular purpose for an infantryman and it cant be replaced by mag changes.

Machine guns were originally awesome as a weapon to use to fire on troops in defilade. It was an indirect fire weapon to bring rain upon an enemy you could not hit with direct fire.

Concentrating all your firepower in 1/4 of your guns is on the balance a loss in firepower over having four magazine fed automatic weapons. Last conversation I had with a guy from 2/75 they had just spent 7 straight nights practicing talking M4s in ambush.

I’m not necessarily talking about indirect fire, current tripods are shit compared with, say, a Lafette. Also, modern gunners are accustomed to using optics to direct their own fire instead of using a spotter.

The infantry now has other options, plentiful mobile mortars, M203, MK23, air on call, artillery. We are a very resource rich military. Our need to use machine guns indirectly is not so necessary any more.

For a squad the Ar is to quickly kill in ambush or to create fire superiority to break contact or better attack through an enemy.

Don’t count on air or artillery in major combat. It might not be available when you want it.
And what, you’re going to burn through 1/3 of your ammunition in cyclic?

 

[RyanScott]

GPMG definitely ain’t dead. Germany just picked up the MG5. And Army has that retarded program NGSW to replace 5.56 weapons with 6.8x51 running 75000+ psi 130gr .277s @ 3000 FPS from a 13” barrel. Basically trying to get 24” .270 Win performance from a 13” .27-08.. Obviously not gonna get adopted(I hope!) but just an example that big Army definitely still wants a hard hitting squad and/or platoon level belt fed.

Milley wants to penetrate body armor with a SAW. It’s a silly program.
GPMG? Look at what exists now. The M240 is used as a medium machinegun, augmented by the 249 and Mk46/48 as ARs and LMGs.

 

[pmclaine]

Concentrating all your firepower in 1/4 of your guns is on the balance a loss in firepower over having four magazine fed automatic weapons. Last conversation I had with a guy from 2/75 they had just spent 7 straight nights practicing talking M4s in ambush.

I’m not necessarily talking about indirect fire, current tripods are shit compared with, say, a Lafette. Also, modern gunners are accustomed to using optics to direct their own fire instead of using a spotter.

Don’t count on air or artillery in major combat. It might not be available when you want it.
And what, you’re going to burn through 1/3 of your ammunition in cyclic?

Why 3/4 that are not AR?

Do they still have that stupid 3 round burst selector in M16s?

Safe, Semi, Auto is the way it should be..........and for riflemen you should hardly ever be on Auto.

In the USMC long ago a Fire Team consisted of Fire Team Leader (M16A2), Rifleman (M16A2), Grenadier (M203) and Automatic Rifleman (SAW).

3 Fire teams made a squad, the squad was lead by a Squad Leader - 13 guys, three teams that could operate independently or controlled as one in mutual support.

Thats a lot of maneuver and fire power ability assuming the SAW was running as intended.

Again assuming the SAW ran as intended, which it often didnt, taking the SAW away to replace it with another mag fed weapon seems to me to be decreasing the fire power of the Fire Team and the Squad.

 

[Son of Dorn]

Okay, first you would have had to carry one and shoot it for thousands of rounds to know the difference between bullshit propaganda and how they actually worked. The M60 is a slightly modified variant of the M42 machine gun. It has had the rate of fire slowed down by about half. I carried and fired (a lot) the M60 machine gun. If you go back and read history in Viet Nam, you will see that the M60 was VERY reliable and depended upon by the troops in Viet Nam. The battle of Ia Drang in November 1965 is notable. And there everafter in Viet Nam and other conflicts. The gun was used in many roles during that and other conflicts, and it seldom failed when utilized by an experienced gunner.

The two guns not really responded to are the MG34 and MG42. Look at their history in WWII and you will see we had a ton of respect for them. So much so, we pretty much copied that design as the basis for the M60. They didn't jam, they did their job. About the only problem with the MG42 was it fired too fast and went through barrels like no yesterday. That and Hitlers F'd up idea that it be used as an assault weapon (read up on German Squad tactics and you'll see) made it less effective than it could have been if used as a support weapon. Nothing like changing barrels in the middle of a gunfight, instead of behind the main assault where it is doable. So, not so much the gun as the dumbass 18 levels back micromanaging the war.

I haven't carried or fired the M240. From what I understand from the people who use it, it's a good weapon. Better than the M60 according to those I knew who have fired both in combat. That's good enough for me to say that's a weapon I would go with. However, from what I understand the m240 and M249 are just scaled differently. I did not like the M249 and I know many over the years who don't either. Again, this is coming from those who have fired it. So, it leaves a little doubt in my mind how good that series is.

The only thing I ever did with any of the combloc machine guns is fire them on a familiarization range. We fired some of them a lot . Others, not so much. They typically reminded me of AK's in that they function well, but hard to lay down a tight beaten zone at some distance. In an all-out assault on your FOB, I think they would do alright. They didn't jam on us, unless someone wasn't doing something right. The Soviets had reliability as a priority over accuracy. Today's Russian still prioritizes that way.

Our version of reliability tends to gravitate towards "better maintenance". Which is impossible during a firefight. But, if well maintained, can keep reliability high. That is until the fight becomes extended. Then it becomes an issue. Fast, expedient maintenance helps. The M16 family and M60 family benefit from this.

In the end, it has to work 99% of the time. Relative accuracy is what is needed.

That's valid. I will not dispute any of that except possibly re: the M240/FN MAG and the M249/FN Minimi being "just scaled differently". I may be incorrect but I thought there was a bit more to their design differences than that. And you will note that I did mention that the M60 is still in use and even favored among certain elements of the US military even with all the myriad teething problems it's had over the years, with the caveat that it needs to be kept well-maintained. You will not hear from me that the M60 is not/was not effective, only that it was not the best design and that it suffered from design flaws that could have and should have been changed (and eventually were, although it took a while and they were never completely fixed). It is not the weapon I would pick if given the choice, but it did work, it still does work, and with the benefit of modern production is probably better now than it was fifty years ago.

The '34 and '42, I have nothing but respect and love for those. If I had to pick any one machine gun to own and operate and use forever after today, I would pick one of them (but it'd be a hard choice between the two). But that's also why I think the MG3 is a better design over the M60, because it is almost an exact copy of the MG42 and not a redesigned combination of the MG42 and FG42. As you say, the MG42 worked and only really failed in working because Hitler (as usual) made stupid decisions about how to use the weapon; the MG3 by extension ought to work just as well.

But yes, y'know what, I'll be the first to admit that all I have to go on is academic knowledge. I have no practical experience with any of these guns, just academic stuff from what I've read. And maybe it's bullshit propaganda and maybe it's factual truth, and whether it's either I am happy to be corrected, reinformed, or edumacated on anything my knowledge and understanding lacks. There is honestly probably no way in hell that I am ever going to have any kind of practical experience with machine guns, much to my regret, so I'll certainly defer to anyone else's on the matter.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Milley wants to penetrate body armor with a SAW. It’s a silly program.
GPMG? Look at what exists now. The M240 is used as a medium machinegun, augmented by the 249 and Mk46/48 as ARs and LMGs.

Maybe my vocabulary ain’t correct.. I’d consider the Mk 48 a GPMG. If the more correct term would be MMG tho, duly noted.
If it was up to me tho, our guys would be carrying KAC belt feds, long as reliability is up to snuff like @pmclaine says..

 

[Strykervet]

Sandwarrior knows his shit.

But hey, you guys mentioning the M60 being good, I've seen the opposite (seen, we weren't issued those). The problem as I understand it is that all the M60's left over after the Gulf War weren't replaced, they were just shot out. The stamping and shit warps and the gun just shoots itself to death apparently. So I guess it depends on when you were in, when you saw the M60, how much use it had.

We had the 240. I had the idea for a Ti receiver from day one so why'd it take THIS LONG? And why not a Lithium alloy come to think of it? Anyway, 240 is awesome. Can be cleaned with sand and water, no shit. MUCH simpler than M60. Simpler than a SAW. Love the 240. HATE carrying it! It's heavy as shit as it was not meant to be shoulder fired or even hip fired for that matter. Works best by far on the tripod, so it always goes with gun team, unless they shit out on you and now you're carrying it, the tripod, scopes and thermal, etc. AND 1200rds. 7.62 plus your shit! It can get back breaking after a while. But when your 240 gunners get setup, the fire support for the moving fireteams is outstanding. Nothing like having a literal 7.62 dust broom clearing shit out ten feet in front of you as you run along. That thing is accurate as hell too, uses exact same barrel blanks as the FN sniper rifle uses. And they're tough and reliable and just...keep...going.

I was a SAW gunner for a while, my first job. Only used weapon system our unit had and they were eventually replaced with the super compact versions. I liked the SAW --when it worked. It WILL go "ka-chunk" at the worst times, gotta be a pro at dropping for your buddy to take the shot or drawing a pistol. That it uses mags is just extra weight, Mk46 (47?) is way to go. Old handguard was just big and useless IMO but you could shoulder it and run with it and keep up. But when they worked, they worked, and they worked very well. For infantry maneuvers at a squad level, having two belt feeders is a BFD. Same thing as having a 240 at those ranges, 900rpm of constant hot shit is 900rpm of constant hot shit, period. Plus SAW can mount in cradles and do all the same shit a GPMG can do.

M27 seems like an answer to a question nobody asked. After whining about AR not being tough enough or enough firepower, amazing to see 'em do a 180 on the most important piece. But I heard the intention is to backdoor issue these to everyone and that they're keeping so many SAWs at company level anyway. That makes more sense, marines do get fucked on gear a lot.

Russians have a .50 that they can dismount and fire from a bipod and use otherwise like a GPMG. I forget what it's called but it's about 46lbs IIRC. Damn.

 

[Son of Dorn]

Russians have a .50 that they can dismount and fire from a bipod and use otherwise like a GPMG. I forget what it's called but it's about 46lbs IIRC. Damn.

I think that would be the Kord? Or its predecessor the NSV.

 

[buffalowinter]

Just FYI. Here is my RPD, cut down, still heavier than hell. Used in Vietnam in this configuraton, I can't imagine hauling this thru the jungle. Con's: heavier than hell Pro's: big bullet, makes the same noise as your enemy and can use their ammo.

RPD at 100 yds on 12 inch plate.

And just for fun, some Vis-Mod Ar-15's I built

My AR-60



AR-60E3

 

[Son of Dorn]

Just FYI. Here is my RPD, cut down, still heavier than hell. Used in Vietnam in this configuraton, I can't imagine hauling this thru the jungle. Con's: heavier than hell Pro's: big bullet, makes the same noise as your enemy and can use theur ammo.



My AR-60

RPD always seemed to me like a fun one to play with, minus the sheer weight. The Soviets did not really go in for grace in their designs, did they?

 

[Mr.BR]

Im kind of wondering if the M27 was a means to end end.

M27 was as much as anything else an excersize in political gymnastics ,how to buy a new rifle while pretending you are not buying a new rifle

 

[pmclaine]

RPD always seemed to me like a fun one to play with, minus the sheer weight. The Soviets did not really go in for grace in their designs, did they?

"There is a certain quality in quantity"

besides its the socialist soviet system.

if you have to start with a 30 pound forging to make a 7 pound receiver who cares?

 

[pmclaine]

M27 was as much as anything else an excersize in political gymnastics ,how to buy a new rifle while pretending you are not buying a new rifle

That was my premise.

They got the camels nose under the tent by pulling on its halter than said "My God how did that camel get in here?"