Danish Army Adopts M60E6 7.62 GPMG

The Danish weapons blog Krigeren (translation: “Warrior) reports that the Danish military has chosen the M60E6 as its next GPMG. The M60 beat out its arch-rival, the HK121.. The new GPMG weights almost 3 KG less than earlier models of the M60 On a personal note, I would have loved to have had this during my time in the Corps. 


The complete weapons package includes optics, thermal, lasers, rangefinders, and more. The rate-of-fire is dropped from over 1200 rounds per minute in the current M/62 to a tame 550 for the M60E6. With the lower ROF, the Danes claim increases in accuracy and reduction in collateral damage.  The Danish MoD will purchase approximately 700 pieces with delivery later this year.

Krigeren reports the following benefits for Danish shooters (*Google Translation below):

• The weight is 9.35 kg, which is approx. 3 kg lighter than the old LMG M/62, and the weight is better distributed.
• Better control of alternative shooting positions such as kneeling and standing.
• Lower shot cadence of about 550 rounds per minute compared to about 1200 for LMG M/62, which increases shooter’s accuracy, reduces ammunition consumption significantly and minimizes the risk of unintended damage (Collateral Damage).
• Ability to deliver one shot at a time.
• Less recoil, which increases the athlete’s ability to observe and correct for accuracy.
• Better options for mounting special screens and other extra accessories such as tactical light laser mm
• Stable adjustable stand.
• Quick pipe change is possible without the use of gloves.

For those looking for some excellent shots of the weapon system, click here to be taken to Krigeren’s photos of the M60E6.



Thanks, Christian!

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • dp

    “….and reduction in collateral damage” – this must be joke. Why not to say: “ease of logistical burden?”. That would be more credible.

    • bbmg

      Very true. In any case, rate of fire is not as critical for ground warfare. In an aircraft, the enemy might only be in your sights for a split second so you want to put as much lead on target as possible in that tiny time interval, but the same does not apply to suppressive fire.

      • valorius

        The Nazis were quite successful in World War II with the MG42 using that same skyhigh firing rate.

        • Cyberats

          And burned through barrels doing so, utilizing 2 men teams.

          • valorius

            All gpmgs are crew served and have a rapid barrel change function.

    • FourString


    • themastermason

      It makes sense if your fighting in an urban/residential environment. Take Lawrence Livermore National Lab for example. My dad works there. When it was a Category 2 nuclear facility it had a contingent of guards all using HK-416’s, M240’s, M249’s and 4 SUV’s with mounted miniguns. I thought that the miniguns were a bad idea because half the lab faces an encroaching residential neighborhood while the other faces relatively empty hills.
      While a single minigun is more than enough to face down a VBED or other threat it is still a bad idea since you are responsible for the thousands of rounds you just let off near a civilian neighborhood. I would have supported using a dual-M240 mount or a single .50 cal since while they fire slower they put less lead in the air.

  • SilentMike

    I’m embarrassed to say I had no idea that the M60 was still undergoing development/improvement. I thought the only outfits with “60’s” were National Guard to whom the Gods had yet to bestow the M-240. With that said, the E6 looks like it incorporates a number of improvements one would expect.

    • TCBA_Joe

      Even Guard units have phased out the M60 entirely in favor or M240Bs. This happened a number of years ago. In fact, the only place you might still find M60s is at the Army ROTC LDAC course where they were issued in place of both M240s and M249s.

      As for the article at hand, there’s a very lively one-sided discussion over on SoldierSystems.net of the documented problems of the M60 FOWs. Worthwhile read if you’re interested in the M60.

      • SilentMike

        Thanks for the link Joe. Very interesting reading.

        A buddy of mine had a 60 that used to “run-away”. With such a low cyclic rate it was easy to grab the belt and give it a twist to bring it back in line.

      • n0truscotsman

        I just read it too and it reflects my exact sentiment when I was in Germany as a young private.

        The M60 is a one of the worst weapons ever conceived (proof of being a product of a corporation rather than a genius). The only thing it had going for it was its relatively light weight and barrel.

        • jon spencer

          Comparing a original M60 to this M60E6 is almost like comparing a Khyber Pass copy of a 1911 to one made by STI.
          Ok, that is a little overblown, but about the only thing left from the original M60 to the M60E6 is the name, the new one runs and the old original breaks.

          • Well said. This is almost a completely different weapon system.

          • n0truscotsman


            I dont want to immediately draw to incorrect conclusions because weapons do evolve. Many times, from a completely deplorable system to a decent one.

        • RustyShackleford1911

          This is NOT your Grandfather’s M-60!

      • dp

        So, there you go – it was basically a fire sale. Do not take me wrong; it is easy to get into M60 bashing, but considering its pedigree, it was bad start for MG role from day one. The idea was probably picked without deeper engineering analysis and now you have this bugger-gun nobody wants.

      • dp

        ….perhaps to explain myself little better: I actually like the hybrid-composite structure of M60 with plenty of sheet metal and investment cast parts. Its main problem however may be way too light action components; to sustain reliable full-auto function you need reservoir of energy in form of mass. If you look at M240 and compare with this, you spot the difference. There is perhaps a compromise between 12kg and 8kg guns and as someone pointed out, the PK in Polish version might be the way.

    • EthanP

      I believe that upgraded M-60’s are still used by the SEALS.

  • bbmg

    Interesting that google translate thinks this is a gun for athletes 😀 imagine showing up to a biathlon with one of these!

    I wonder how Danish soldiers feel about having a “new” weapon whose basic design is older than their fathers. Well, it is “the gun of Rambo” I suppose…

    • LCON

      I think those are Olympics I would actually Watch.

      • bbmg

        Hear hear 🙂

    • Giolli Joker

      I’m more concerned by the barrel being just a pipe… 🙂

    • valorius

      Combat arms soldiers are definitely athletes.

    • Cyberats

      In Denmark you can, they have the ski and shoot.

    • Joool

      Our old LMG was the german MG42 so the M60 is accualy quich new compared 😀

  • The Hun

    Hitler’s Buzz Saw.

  • Ken

    So MG3’s sold as parts kits?

    • Anonymoose

      They’d probably going to cost 10 grand if they are able to bring them over…

  • Nicholas Mew

    Poor choice. There are much better options out there like the UKM-2000.

    • dp

      You are right – this may a be a superior gun since it combines the best of features in existence. But consider, what economical-political clout has Nato-newbie Poland in comparison to US behemont.

      • SP mclaughlin

        It’d be a little unbecoming for a western European country to use a modernized Soviet weapon. Not that I don’t like me some PKM, but I don’t see how it’s advantageous over the modern Pig.

        • Cyberats

          54mm casing can put more gunpowder in the shot, making it more effective against military issued personnel armor ?

          • Scorpy

            The difference in case capacity is pretty negligible, plus the UKM-2000 is chambered in 7.62 NATO anyways.

          • Cyberats

            I’d like to see ft.lbs force delivered at 800m from all MMGs.
            I am interested in personnel armor penetration tests.

        • Scorpy

          Well… Finland went ahead, and bought more PKMs to replace our locally made LMGs… didn’t even rechamber them. Currently we’re testing them for optics mounts etc, as far as I know.

          The Israeli Negev seems interesting. Comes in 7.62 too, as does the FN Maximi!

  • Mark

    Beat out the HK 121 in what ways? I’m on an iPad and without translate. Anyone able to read more in to the article and see if it says anything about the tests and results. I had no idea the M60 design still had so much life in it. Curious if it flat out preformed the 121 or won on price. Did they not test the 240B?

    • dp

      Given the fact the decisions are made based on financial-political bases, it is easy to understand that technical considerations are of minor importance. After all, they all do the same – spit out bullets. M60 might be more compact and lighter, perhaps true.

  • that guy

    being a fan of the M60 i must say… HOLY FREAKING CRAP THAT GUN IS SEXY!. that is all.

  • iksnilol

    I am not really a fan of the M60, mainly because it makes me scream “GIT SOME! GIT SOME!” all the time.

    Think I would rather have used a PKM (rechambered to .308). 7.5 kg is much handier to carry around.

  • limerickas

    Its a SAW (avoided 5.56 systems)

    From Jane’s Defence:
    ” Royal Danish Army’s experiences in Afghanistan made reduced weight and
    high mobility key factors for a new squad MG, with the replacement
    programme’s four main requirements being weight, ergonomics, firepower
    and accuracy …. The new MG will be used as a squad support weapon, with the older LMG
    m/62 remain in service with second-line units and as a vehicle-mounted
    machine gun, where weapon weight is not important.”

  • Lance

    As a M-60 fan too. Have to say the E6 rocks. Its better than the M-240 in a few reasons. Its lighter smaller and more comfortable to shoot than the FN MAG is. Much ike the Navy SEALs never gave up the M-60 glad to see other still use them.

    • TCBA_Joe

      The teams DID give up the M60. They’re using M240s and MK48s and have been for a while.

      • Cyberats

        Anyone out there who can comment on the MK48s ?
        I remember seeing it on R. Lee Ermie’s show once then never again.

  • SP mclaughlin

    Cool video of the trials:

  • Sheldon Cooper

    I’ve had many a extractor break on that pig…good luck!

  • Geoff a well known Skeptic

    This version of the M60 is optimized for the Light MG role (belt fed 7.62), not the multifunction Medium MG the original M60 design was intended. I have been on the crew and performed DS service on the M60. Not my favorite design by a long shot. Geoff Who spent time gauging receivers and welding mods.

  • valorius

    I’d rather have the mg3/42 pictured.

  • Old Armorer

    And in about 5 or 6 years, Denmark will be dropping this lipsticked pig due to lack of parts, since no one else is drinking the M60E6 koolaid and the manufacturer will be out of business by then.

    The M60 was a piece of shit in 1957, and no matter how many bandaids are applied, it remains a piece of shit. The design is deeply flawed, from the too-light receiver components that were riveted together, to the stamped feed assembly parts, to the poorly designed bolt and operating rod that grinds itself into unserviceability in use.

    Fortunately, the fate of NATO does not rest on the decisions of Denmark’s arms purchasing committee.