Kanonier Reichmann Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I'm hoping some of you grognards "in the know" could enlighten me why the Americans took a perfectly good design in the German MG42 & then made a number of design changes to it to produce the M60...an MG which I gather was less reliable than its predecessor with the greater complexity in its design making it more prone to jams etc. What was the rationale behind the design changes? Were there perfectly sound reasons for them at the time or perhaps could it have been a national pride thing along the lines of... "well, if the Germans can design a good MG then our version MUST be different and by definition, better." Any input on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Regards Jim R. ------------------ Whoa mule, WHOA!.....when ah sez Whoa ahz mean WHOA!!! ....Whang.... Ya flea bitten varmit... Ah hate dat Wabbit! (or Gerbil or Hampster or Rattus Rattus...insert preference) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas K Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I knew that the M60 used the same principles as the ol' MG42 but I don't think it was a copy. For one thing it was of different calibre. 7.62mm vrs. 7.93mm. I never had a problem with the M60 except once during an ambush one of the expended links had fallen into the reciever area when I had moved to a new position and jammed the thing up. I can't remember anybody complaining about the weapon. It shot steady and could reach out and touch someone at a 1000 yds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironcross Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 i,m not sure now but when we went to Norway the mg they had was more or less the same as a mg42.I never heard to many complaints over the m60, must admit i did think our gpmg was the best. The worst was the .30 browning i found it burnt out to easy, one weapon id love to fire again would be the bren gun, excellent piece of kit,though restricted by its magazine it was a good support weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 The Norwegian MG42s were probably West German MG3s which evolved from post war MG42s re-worked for 7.62x 51mm Ammo. In 1986+ the Norweagian home Guard also still had some MG34s of WW2 manufacture which were also reworked for 7.62mm ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 just thought I'd post this. A picture of a Bundeswehr soldier with an MG3, looks very similar to an MG42 to me (but I'm not an expert, and I know lots of people here are!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 The M60 is based on a Belgian design, not the mg42, and yes there is very little difference between the MG3 and the 42. As for the 60 being a POS, where're you getting your data? I liked mine, I liked it a lot(since it probably kept my young @ss alive) ------------------ Pzvg "Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check6 Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Thomas K, was that a real ambush in a war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 The Norwegian MG is in fact an MG3. I was trained as an MG gunner in my recruit period so I've shot some thousand rounds with it. What baffles me though is that the americans didn't build on the proven and durable design of the MG42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: The M60 is based on a Belgian design, not the mg42, and yes there is very little difference between the MG3 and the 42. As for the 60 being a POS, where're you getting your data? I liked mine, I liked it a lot(since it probably kept my young @ss alive) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The M60 evolved from the US 1944 - 1945 T44 experimental design which was built around the best features of the German MG42 & FG42 the prototype proved "disapointing" and major work was done concerning the piston. The work led to the T52 design which ran into severe feed problems, which then led to the T161 prototpe design which reatined the MG42 feed system & became the M-60. Regards, John Waters ------------------ Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster! [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 John, DING! nice try and very correct in it's particulars one teeny little factiod though, {browning designed weapon} aka FN Browning, aka Belgian weapon, since when the US wouldn't buy his stuff Mr. Browning moved to Belgium (hint, Stoner copied the bolt group from the Fn MAG 'cause it was a solid design) ------------------ Pzvg "Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: John, DING! nice try and very correct in it's particulars one teeny little factiod though, {browning designed weapon} aka FN Browning, aka Belgian weapon, since when the US wouldn't buy his stuff Mr. Browning moved to Belgium (hint, Stoner copied the bolt group from the Fn MAG 'cause it was a solid design) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok how does that change the fact that the M60 evolved from the MG42 & FG42?. Regards, John Water ---------- "Everyone is sick of the war, except those lunatics at Military HQ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 Ahh the MAG a perfect weapon to shoot with. I have fired many rounds with it. Only thing that bothers me compared to the M-60 was the difference in weight. The MAG was a tough and heavy weapon to carry on patrol. The Belgian arms factories did well in the US though. FN herstal won the competiton for its Minimi and the M16 were issued by them as well ,or am I wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted September 3, 2000 Author Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: The M60 is based on a Belgian design, not the mg42, and yes there is very little difference between the MG3 and the 42. As for the 60 being a POS, where're you getting your data? I liked mine, I liked it a lot(since it probably kept my young @ss alive) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry but I wasn't trying to say the M60 was a "piece of ****e" but simply I remember reading somewhere that the piston in the M60 had holes drilled into it for some reason whereas the MG42 had a solid piston. The problem with the "holy" piston was if you put it back the wrong way around (after cleaning say) the holes didn't line up or something & then all you would get is one shot off before it stopped firing! (from memory). I was just interested in the American rationale for changing what was a tried & tested design. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 It's my belief that the M60 got it's bad reputation from modern GI's who were issued 20yr old weapons,(not an unusuall situation),add to that the fact that the M60 doesn't fire blanks very well(most soldiers fire far more blanks than live rounds in a typical enlistment)and you have the recipe for a bad rep. Personally I thought it was a great weapon. Stoffel;the M16 was designed by Colt. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 I known but the contract to supply the Us army with new ones was awarded to a Belgian company who originally made the M-16 in licence. I thought it was FN they made a better offer than Colt I have that info somewhere can't find it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Joe Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 The M-16A2 fires bullets at 950 meters per second (muzzle velocity). I did the math and it turns out to be 3420 km/h. I forgot the conversion from km to U.S. (miles). Can anybody help me with this? I'd like to know fps and mach. Oh, and more thing: How does the M-60E3 compare to the SAW? Edited twice 'cuz I'm just I big screw up. ------------------ Ah scheist. [This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 09-03-2000).] [This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 09-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertanker Posted September 3, 2000 Share Posted September 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: The problem with the "holy" piston was if you put it back the wrong way around (after cleaning say) the holes didn't line up or something & then all you would get is one shot off before it stopped firing! (from memory). I was just interested in the American rationale for changing what was a tried & tested design. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember watching some documentary once about recon marines or something like that. In an exercise, the allegedly elite forces were given the mission of defending against a small landing force. The head of the recon platoon spent a lot of time bragging about how great they were & that they expected to lose, but at a high body count for the attackers. So, after spending a day or so preparing positions & checking weapons, the attack comes. They then show the platoon leader in his foxhole with his M60, firing one shot, working the action, firing another shot, working the action - Brainiac the Braggart had assembled it incorrectly. The documentary makers did not comment, but I thought it was pretty funny and a good comeuppance. With regards to why the MG42 was not adopted straight across, there is always the issue of "Not Designed Here." From what I have read, it is very difficult to get the US military to adopt a design from another country. This may have been magnified since the perception of the MG42 might have been that it was a "damn Nazi gun." Pressure from other NATO countries has resulted in some common equipment (the M9, M249, and Rhinemetall 120mm come to mind), but the Pentagon prefers to design its own stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 M60 is based on the MG42 feed and the FG42 action. It had its problems at first but has proven itself over time. The observation about GIs forming impressions based on 20-yr.-old issue gear is right on- my .45 barely had rifling left in the bore. I never used the M60 but the grunts seemed to like 'em. In the tank we had the M73 (for the coax) and THAT was a POS. M16 was absolutely designed by Eugene Stoner in the 50s, based on the Armalite AR10, and licensed to Colt for manufacture in 1959. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 One huge difference between the MG42 and the M60 is the ROF. The MG42 fires over 1000 rounds a minute. The M60 fires around 600. U.S. weapons designers fealt that the ROF of the MG42 was too high resulting in wasted ammo and reduced accuracy. As for lineage there are some components of the M60 that were taken directly from the MG42 and many others that were not. It's probably not unfair to say that the M60 is derived from the MG42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Joe Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Bump Plus I want my questions answered... ------------------ Ah scheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandorf Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas K: I knew that the M60 used the same principles as the ol' MG42 but I don't think it was a copy. For one thing it was of different calibre. 7.62mm vrs. 7.93mm. I never had a problem with the M60 except once during an ambush one of the expended links had fallen into the reciever area when I had moved to a new position and jammed the thing up. I can't remember anybody complaining about the weapon. It shot steady and could reach out and touch someone at a 1000 yds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it was 7.92mm. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueball Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 There are 1.609344 Kilometers per mile. Each mile if 5280 feet. You should be able to figure out what you need from that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Joe, M60E3 vs SAW M60E3 = short version of M60,nearly same weight and same round. SAW = heavy belt fed version of M16A2,much lighter than M60, and uses 5.56mm round of M16 making ammo resupply easier (instead shipping 2 different types of ammo, just send more of 1 type) Hope that gives you an answer ------------------ Pzvg "Murphy's law of combat #10, never forget your weapon is made by the lowest bidder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts