Was the move from the M60 to the SAW, or now M249 the right move? I get the potential benefits of the M249, more ammo, lighter/more mobile, higher rate of sustained fire then the AR, shared ammo, etc.
At the same time, it’s sending the same thing downrange everyone else is.
Those I have known during the times of the M60 essentially the same thing to say about it; it was a PITA for who ever had to hump it, and all the other downsides known, but nothing warmed their heart like the thump thump thump when it came into play, it was a work horse of a weapon, and they felt it was a deciding factor in their small unit experiences, and they generally loved “the pig”
The Q is directed obviously to those current or ex mil, but Q is open to who ever. No fight/debate intended here, just a Q I ponder and wonder what those on the two way range have thought on the matter.
What say you? Is there a general like for the M249 and it fits it’s intended use well, or would you rather have an M60 in your unit with it’s added weight, etc?
Never handled a pig, but have a fair amount of experience with the m249 SAW both in long barrel long stock, long barrel collapsible stock and short barrel collapsible stock configurations. I’ve qualified on all 3 variations as an automatic rifleman (vs the crew served). IIRC the range is 300 to 800 meters with all of the above it was not an issue walking the rounds into the 800m target. Qualifying is not difficult with an mg of any sort (I’ve qualified on most MG’s in the military inventory m249, m249b M2 mk19).
The strong point for the M249 is the rate of fire, you’re in a suppressive role as the auto-rifleman. The job is to keep heads down so your team can engage, break contact, move positions and take care of anything that might arise.
I can’t speak to the M60 as I have no experience, but the m249 SAW has a strong role in the squad sized element IMHO.
I dont think the SAW replaced the M60 but I may be wrong. Also you should note that the M60 is still in service with the NAVY. It was the first GPM I ever fired and learned to brake down and re assemble. I could fire it from the shoulder or hip run with it up and deploy it vary fast almost like a rifle. I never personaly had any issues with my weapon.
When I humped the SAW it was the same situation, my weapon functioned great in every instance. I never felt under guned or out matched. In fact I felt as if I had an edge in fire power and accuracy made me feel very cocky. I would be hard press to turn down a para saw if it was a choice between that and and M4.
The M240 on the other hand, was fine when it was mounted up on the truck. However when the truck went away and the boots hit the ground, I always felt like I was a walking retard. The mother fucker is heavy firing it from the shoulder was next to impossable for me and there is no were to rest you hand. I can still remember the strain on my lower back and the heat cramps in my arms. It always worked though always!
I confuse/forget the difference between the 240 and the 249. Correction noted, thanx. I always think of the 249 and the general replacement to the M60.
Yes the 240 replaced the M60. The SAW was not a replacement for the M60.
The 240 is a much better weapon than the M60. People may be nostalgic about the M60 and its unique sound but for most people it was hard to keep running and requires more maintenance. The m60 was good for its time.
The PKM and MG3 are also good GPMG’s. I had the opportunity to cross train on the MG3 and it sure spits them out. The M240 is very controllable and I found it pretty easy to keep bursts on torso size targets out to 200-300 meters.
The SAW is also a good weapon but most of them are old and in need of refurbishment. In 2006 we got ours converted to the short barrel and collapsible stock. For the size its a very potent gun and easy to operate.
New versions of the M240 have titatanium recievers which is the M240L. They are are also using Mk48’s which is like a big SAW.
The “standard” Army issue version is the 240B which has heat shields while the USMC issued the 240G which did not have a heat shields. There are also versions for tank use (coax) and a version for helos which has the spade grips.
I have limited experience with the M60. We had a few in the arms room up until a few years ago, but they didn’t see much use.
I will tell you that the M240 (which replaced the M60) has proven to be an extremely reliable and accurate machine gun. They’ll generally stay running in the mud and snow long after the SAW gunners have had to field strip and resolve an issue. We had one engagement where a pair of M240’s went through 6,000 rounds on 4 barrels over the course of a few hours. The SAW gunners (they were actually MK46’s) were out of the fight trying to get the guns back up while the 240’s kept going.
We (the Army) currently have the new lightweight M240L’s as well as the MK48’s as far as 7.62 MG’s go. Mission dictates which one of those comes out.
Here’s some eye candy of a MK48 with Surefire Suppressor…
It’s a better machine gun, but a bit heavy. Running the M60 was a pain because the bipod was on the barrel. Barrel changes with the M240 are easier, quicker, and involve less burning flesh smell.
I would agree that the 240 replaced the 60 as far as vehicle mounted and crew served weapons, but I believe the MK48 is replacing/has replaced the 60 as far as the individually fielded 7.62 belt-fed weapon within specwar units if I recall correctly, however; many still prefer their pigs. I recall hearing somewhere that NSW were the only ones in the US that fielded the 60 as a non-crew served weapon.
I never had any experience with the M60 but I was a SAW gunner in 03 during the Iraq invasion. I was also a truck gunner during my 05 tour and had a 240B assigned to me, but only when gunning on a truck. I thankfully never had to hump one around on foot.
The SAW is a great weapon when its properly maintained. Many of ours were old and worn out. Mine was old but it still was pretty reliable. During a trench clearing live fire exercise my Squad leader told me I better not have any ammo left over. I went through 600 rounds during that exercise and didnt have a single malfunction. It did have some problems after the big sandstorm but once I cleaned it well she ran good again. It was accurate out to 800 meters and I have engaged soft vehicles out to around 1200 with it. That was just practice but it still put lead on target at that range. My experience was only with the older long barrel models.
The 240 might be my favorite of all the machine guns. They are super reliable, accurate and fairly controlable. The only time I had one jam on me it was completely my fault. The rounds come in 100 round cardboard boxes. At the range I pulled the belt out and started firing. I apparently didnt pull it all the way out and the last few rounds caught the side of the box and pulled it into the action. All I had to do was open the feed tray and pull the ripped up box out and she was good to go. Longest I ever shot it was about 1000 meters and I could seriously ruin your day at that range.
What I remember most about the M-60 was that if you needed them in support, the Company would task all 9 guns to support the main effort. The gunners would provide support with 2 or 3 guns and the rest would be handy for spare parts to keep sustained support. When the E3s came out the situation improved but the 60, even the E3s needed to be treated delicately. I’m guessing because they were so light.
When the 240s came out, the level of support missions went up, no longer did the gunners have to bring extra guns to keep up the support fires.
While on the machinegun topic…when the M-2 came back to us in 83, many of the 0331 switched to heavy guns because of the M-2 being mounted on jeeps. Unfortunately, the guns got to them about 2 years before the jeeps did so they were stuck humping the M-2.
Think you mean MK46, not MK48. When they first came around we all screwed it up too. When the MK47’s got fielded it got even more fucked up.
Fortunately, I haven’t seen an M249 in a long time, only the 46’s. They (the 46’s) are still commonly called “SAW lights” and the 48’s “SAW heavies” despite the fact that neither one is, in technicality, a SAW (249). LOL.
Was never a Marine, but if I were to turn in my old squad’s M249s in the 101st I would like Mk.48s or at least a Mk.46s in return.
What is the feasibility of a light infantry squad running something like a Mk.48 by a single soldier and not an MG team? Is it fielded with a tripod and a T&E Mech? How many extra barrels are typically carried?
