Talk:M60 machine gun

Feedback
Am I the only one who's ever read this, entry, carefully/properly?

Design

. "The design drew on many common concepts in firearm manufacture of the period such as stamped steel metal construction". Not really. . "The M60's gas system was simpler than other gas systems and easier to clean". Really!? Wot, in not having a gas regulator? . "It can be stripped using a live around of ammunition as a tool". I never needed it, for normal cleaning. . "the M60's stamped sheet receiver". Ha!?

I read somewhere else that its receiver was actually made out of 6 welded strips. Really!?

Design flaws

. "The weapon was poorly balanced, and thus awkward to carry for long periods", Really!? An almost bullpup MG. . "High-round-count weapons were also susceptible to stretching of the receiver and other parts". Really!? Surely, if anything, the receiver would get compressed. The only thing I can think of which might conceivably get stretched is the barrel extension?chamber. . "The clip has been known to be prone to breakage". No, it would (just) go flat and fall off. The bipod legs were brittle and would break, off. And that carry/ing handle was too skinny. Not that I ever used it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you asking? I'm not sure what you are saying. If you can't believe that a gun can be made out of sheet metal, look at the STG44, Gerait, M3 grease gun, and STEN gun. They all have stamped receivers. If you are wondering why wikipedia says all this stuff, its because it is written by internet users not licensed historians or experienced firearms users. And the internet users always write about the worst parts of a gun(or anything really) rather than if it was sufficient for the job it was used/designed for. This is why the Sherman tank has such a bad reputation on wikipedia and the internet(and world).

It's kind of like the Garand ping drawback idea. A common myth is that the sound of the Garand clip ejection would alert enemy soldiers that they were reloading. This is false logically(firefights are super loud), false tactically(the fact that a rifleman is reloading does not put them at any tactical vulnerability unless they are alone and out in the open or something like that), and false factually(the Garand never had this drawback in the field). So regarding what wikipedia says about how the M60 handled, take it with a grain of salt. And if you have used an M60(extensively), ignore wikipedia.(Post made by Blamazon) 2601:600:C400:12E:0:0:8AAF:4A77 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

FG-42 vs MG-42
I heard somewhere that the M60 is based more on the FG-42 than the MG-42 in how it was designed. Is there any truth in this?Blamazon (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both are addressed in the article. Do you have a source for this info? - wolf  19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Only rumors I've heard, the part I was thinking of was the FG-42's controllibility vs the MG-42's feed system and fire rate. I was wondering which of these features the M60 was designed with.Blamazon (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEISYOURFRIEND. If you find anything worthwhile to add the article, feel free to add it, and don't forget to source your edits. - wolf  23:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do that.Blamazon (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

M60 as a medium machine gun
Loafiewa, the article currently states:


 * 1) "It was intended to replace the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle and M1919A6 Browning machine gun in the squad automatic weapon role, and in the medium machine gun role"
 * 2) "In January 1994, the U.S. Army began the Medium Machine Gun Upgrade Kit program. The only two competitors were M60 and M240 versions."
 * 3) "In Army trials during the 1990s the M60E4 produced by Saco Defense was pitted against the M240E4 (then called) produced by FN for a new medium machine gun to be used by the infantry. The competition was to replace the decades-old M60s."

This seems to confirm the M60's status as a medium machine gun. If you think not - where is the data in the article that supports your stance? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)