When Pigs Fly: An 850 Round Burst From An M60

850rounds

Though I’m spending most of my time this Saturday hitting a stack of thick books as part of my ongoing research, I wouldn’t want to leave our readers hanging. So, today we’ll take a look at an older – but still extremely impressive – video from back in the dawn of YouTube. That is, an excruciatingly brutal 2006 test of an M60E4 of firing 850 rounds with a single pull of the trigger:

Despite having been replaced in US service by the less ambitious M240 design, the M60 still soldiers on; and indeed has achieved further success recently with the Danish adoption of the improved M60E6 variant. Since the Vietnam-era Pig is still in production, it’s unlikely that we’ll see the end of its service life any time soon; and with a demonstration like that video above, it’s easy to see why.

The video can also be seen as something of a microcosm of how far automatic weapons have come since Maxim’s invention; that string of fire is something one might expect from a water-cooled medium machine gun of the Great War era, but to see a twenty pound air-cooled machine gun pull it off is really something. The Stellite-lined barrel performs well above what is required of it in the test.

What more could you ask for from an air-cooled machine gun? Well, you could do the same test twice on the same gun, then string sixteen hundred rounds together and do it again, until the barrel gives out:

Based on the timestamp and the vanishing rows of linked ammunition, I’d say the gun failed between rounds 1100 and 1400 in the megabelt. Astounding!



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • the_duck

    Megabelt will now be a banned item from the ATF.

    • Roger V. Tranfaglia

      G DAMMIT…..I just bought a ZILLION links………….

  • MountainKelly

    Ahhjj us ordnance. Good company, Reno’s biggest firearms manufacturer

  • USMC03Vet

    That’s not burst.

    That’s cyclic.

    XD

  • Nicks87

    I remember firing the M60 for the first time, it put a smile on my face for the rest of the day and left a lasting memory, it was awesome. Then, fast forward to Sept 11, 2001 when I had to carry it around for 16 days in a row. After that I never wanted to see the damn thing again lol.

    • law-abiding-citizen

      My first experience with the M-60 was on my 21st birthday . . . at the range . . . in Basic Training. Sadly, I did NOT get to follow it up with my first legal drink, but all things considered, not a bad day 🙂

  • Riot

    The pig has to be one of the worst machine gun designs to get through acceptance testing, with its disconnecting trigger and the fact it need to be held together with wire or tape at times. A certain french designer who thought open magazines in trench warfare however shall always take the cake.
    Its good to see the improvements – it almost made it to its rounds before breaking (when it lost out to FN) on that last trigger pull alone!

  • Pete Sheppard

    Not your daddy’s Pig!
    Still, If I were intentionally firing it to failure, I think I’d use a tripod and a string from cover…

    • Bill

      That, or pick the guy you like least, and has the healthiest trigger finger and high boredom threshold

  • MPWS

    Note to Nathaniel:

    I want to say my respect to your contributions in your (and coincidentally mine too) favored area – in-depth studies of obscure and intriguing weaponry – in spite of occasional disputation from my side. Keep on rolling!

  • mosinman

    I want to know why the army went with M-240 instead of a modernized and improved M-60?

    • Cheaper, better.

      The M 60 has some features that are truly retarded. For one, the bipod is attached to the barrel so when you want to change the barrel, you throw a switch, pull the barrel out, and then the gun nosedives into the dirt!
      The 240 also just consistently demonstrates less mrbf and mrbs.

      • Mk43Mod0

        You clearly know very little about the M60 or you’d know that neither the M60E3 (fielded since the 1980s), nor the M60E4 / MK43 (fielded since the 1990s) have bipods attached to the barrels. The bipods—like the one on the E4 in the video you posted—are attached to the op-rod extension tubes so the barrels drop freely.

        You really should do a little research before commenting on things you know very little about. But then again it’s a lot easier to just mislead everyone with incorrect, outdated information.

        Did you hear, the Colt M16 got rid of the carry handle? Jesus.

        • I was referring to the E1, the only one I have time behind. I know that overtime problems have been rectified, but the M60 has A rough history and the FN MAG is still a much, much better machine gun.
          Relax homie, it’s Saturday 🙂

          • FWIW: Despite popular misconception, the M60E1 was never fielded. The following picture shows a M60E1 prototype with its barrel removed. Note that the bipod and gas piston have been removed from the barrel, while the carrying handle was relocated to the barrel.

      • mosinman

        That’s why I said “modernized and improved” like the MG the Danes are getting.

    • Riot

      Because the modernised M60 in the trials was breaking at four times the rate of the FN MAG (see my other post) and it was a similar situation with jams, for every jammed FN there would be two busted M60s and 3 or 4 jammed ones.

    • Jay

      While the FN-MAG was superior to the M-60 in the infantry dismounted LMG mode, the area where M-60 was pretty much worthless was in tanks and vehicles. That’s why even with some improvements of the m60 in dismounted role, it was still imperative to be replaced.

      • Tom Currie

        Considering that the M60 was NEVER mounted on tanks (except VERY unofficially) I doubt that anyone was very concerned about replacing it in that role. The only actual fighting vehicle that routinely mounted the M60 was the ACAV version of the M113, which was fielded pretty much exclusively in Vietnam. I suppose some people might count MP jeeps as fighting vehicles.

        The M240 ought to be more durable than the M60, considering that it weighs about twice as much.

        Technically the M240 is a superior design in every way except weight — but keep in mind that the M240 was not selected to replace the M60. It was selected to replace the M219 (which was just a slightly-less-f***ed-up version of the M73 nightmare). Tankers didn’t care about the extra weight of the M240 over the M219 because we didn’t have to carry it (although we weren’t especially fond of its length and the rube goldberg firing system that constantly needed to be readjusted).

        Tankers’ only experience with the M60 was in Vietnam where one or two were typically issued to a tank crew for ‘dismounted’ use (some crews rigged mounts in front of the loader’s hatch and/or on the bustle rack but most just kept the gun loose).

        It was fun to note the difference in how the M60 was operated by tankers vs grunts. In the AO that we shared, it took five 11B’s to operate one M60 — one to carry the gun and about 10-50 rounds of ammo, two carrying 400 rounds each; one to carry the tripod( that no one ever used) and the spare barrel (ditto); and an NCO to carry the binoculars to look for the rest of his gun crew. Meanwhile a 19E would carry an M60 with one 300 round belt linked to it (and one or two more 300 round belts if he planned to be out of sight of his own tank). Of course, I will happily admit that we didn’t ever plan on walking very far.

        One of our pet tricks was to weaken the drive spring to reduce the cyclic rate slightly which made the gun both more controllable and more reliable.

        • Kirk

          Couple of interesting things about the tank coax guns…

          Per the anecdotes I heard from the old-timers, the reason they chose “M219” as the designator for the M73 was that the supposedly “fixed” gun was actually exactly three times worse than the original version… Do the math. Hell of a coincidence, isn’t it?

          The other interesting thing was the test series they ran to replace it. They had every major coax MG in the world there for that, most with full factory support. The M60E3 did horribly, close to dead last. The MAG-58 won on numbers, but the real winner was one of the controls, a battlefield pick-up PKT we got from the Israelis. With precisely zero factory support, ammo that was also battlefield pick-up, and testers who more or less learned how to run the gun on the job, it had the best overall numbers of all the competitors for the contract. If I’d been the guy running that gig, I think I would have told everyone that the competition was now to see who could do the best job of reverse-engineering the PK for 7.62X51 and mass-producing it.

          • n0truscotsman

            I heard not so endearing stories about the M219 and 73, alongside the M85. They are worthy of multiple series articles on here similar to how gas tappet actions were covered.

            We had some real stinkers for armored vehicle machine guns, thats for sure.

            Stupid, considering there were many other far superior options for pintle-mounted, coax, and infantry portable machine guns.

            What always burned my ass about the PK was that it undoubtedly could be mass produced faster and cheaper than anything, while retaining superior reliability in a comparatively light package. I never expected much from it until I had hands on experience with one in Iraq.

          • Tom Currie

            A lot of us never saw any reason to do more than re-barrel the old M37 that the M73 replaced. For those not familiar with the M37, it was the tank version of the M1919 Browning. Chop off the bottom half of the pistol grip, leave off the sights, and you pretty much get the idea. Many other western countries that switched from .30 cal (7.62×63) to 7.62NATO (7.62×51) did this; in fact the US did issue a few re-barrelled M37 machine guns, but the experts in ordnance were in love with all the advantages of the M73 (too bad its only small disadvantage was that it wouldn’t shoot).

            Some of the problems with the M73 and M219 were due to the way ammunition was stowed and fed to the coax – which was basically unchanged from .30cal days – requiring a long unsupported belt of ammunition being dragged by the feed pawls in the gun. This was especially evident in peacetime where there would be only a couple hundred rounds coming from the bottom of a box meant to hold a LOT more. One trick some of us used to make the gun work acceptably on ranges was to build up a platform in the bottom of the ammo box so that the ammo was being drawn from the top of the box instead of dragged up from the bottom. It didn’t solve all the problems but it helped quite a bit.

    • Kirk

      They shouldn’t have picked either one.

      We got the M240B as the dismount gun mostly because the low-grade morons in our small arms procurement agency had no plans to replace the M60, and the Rangers and Marines were tired of the bullshit they had to go through to keep their M60s operational. If I remember right, there was an incident on a live-fire range where a bunch of Rangers got shot up because one of the M60s that were providing support by fire for an assault experienced a runaway gun due to a worn op rod and sear. It wasn’t the first time for that happening, either, but after some guys got hurt, it was the last straw. When the Regiment went to find out when the folks doing procurement planned on doing, they were basically informed that it was to be “more of the same…”.

      At that point, they noticed that the Marines were eyeballing all those M240 coax guns that were in the war stocks. Before the loggies woke up to what was happening, the Marines got those things declared “excess to needs”, and literally picked them up for loose change. Add in the purchase of some of the ground-mount kits that FN had been hawking, and hey-presto, we’ve got a new general issue MG. Actual field testing, which would have demonstrated the weight issues we’ve run into in Afghanistan if they’d been done properly, never actually happened. After all, we’d already tested the guns and adopted them, right?

      As a coax, that is. Infantry ground use was never validated completely. They gave it a lick and a promise, but never went as far as they should have. I ran into a couple of the guys who took part in that process on the Ranger side, and it was a little disturbing to find that they never really took a good look at a lot of the weight issues that every other user of the MAG-58 have run into. Adding in all that crap like the heat shields we put on that weapon was done without a second thought as to whether that extra weight was going to be manageable.

      It is notable that the two nations with the most combat experience with the MAG-58, Israel and South Africa, both chose to design their own, much lighter, GPMG when the time came to replace theirs. The Negev and the SS-77 both demonstrate the hard-won lessons both armies took from their decades of experience with the MAG-58.

      Frankly, I’d have paid attention to those facts, and then taken a long, hard look at whether or not I wanted my light infantry hauling that thing around for the next generation or two. If it had been my decision to make, neither a product-improved M60 or ground-mount M240 would have gotten the nod. I’d have run a full field test, including the Negev, the SS-77, and the PKM at a minimum, and then gone with the most well-rounded gun for procurement. The M240 is a really good gun, but the fact is, it is just too damn heavy.

    • Just say’in

      Because you can’t fix stoopid.

  • Fruitbat44

    850 rounds in one burst? I am pleasantly surprised they didn’t weld something together with that lot.
    There is a case of a British LMG (Minimi) being fired to destruction on the range, the barrel overheating to the point that rounds were exiting its side. So all-in-all it’s quite a impressive feat, even if it is from 2006.

  • Lance

    Still in use with USCG reserve and NAVY SEALs. I think it better than the M-240 lighter less boxy, higher rate of fire.

    The E-3 is a awesome LMG and its 7.62 round beats the SAWs 5.56mm round any day anytime.

    • CommonSense23

      The SEALs don’t use the MK43. They dumped them a while ago for the FN MK48. And a 240 will crush a 60/43 in everything but single man/shoulder firing use.

      • Lance

        Strange the pictures still see SEALs use M-60sE3s and still see USCG reserve have M-60. FN is crappy beast heavier and bulkier than a M-60. Strange how tactie cooler dis the PiG but still see SOCOM and NATO allies use them

        • Grindstone50k

          See the comments from Kirk above.

        • CommonSense23

          Strange you use images taken from over a decade ago to try and state what weapons systems are still in the inventory. There are not any 43s left in the NSW inventory. Next thing you know you are going to try and state Seals still use the MP5 for CQB.

    • John Sjöström

      Here in sweden we have a gas selection on our FN Mags so it can fire anywhere from 500 to over 1000 rpm. Can you do that with the M240 and M60?

      • Kirk

        No. The US doctrine and policy does away with that entire idea, in the name of idiot-proofing the guns. The M60 can’t even be adjusted by design, the gas system supposedly doing that for itself. They did that intentionally, baking it into the design. It’s one of the vaunted advantages of the M60, as a matter of fact.

        Now, here’s the weird thing about it all: It stems from a military culture that is weirdly schizophrenic. We still design and procure our weapons, particularly small arms, as though we’re doing so for the lowest common denominator. Adjusting the gas system is deemed to be “too complex”, and they feel the need to festoon the things with all manner of hand guards and heat shields. Faced with similar issues, most other users of the M240 had a simple solution: Soldiers burning their hands on the weapon’s barrels and gas system? Train them not to touch those, and the problem is solved. US Army? Add a couple of pounds of plastic and aluminum. I swear, if they could, the mentality would have us putting padded foam protectors on all the sharp corners and edges.

        For some reason, the culture in the US Army still thinks its dealing with the dregs of society, and insists on dumbing everything down. It is as though they think they’re dealing with nothing but Macnamara’s Hundred Thousand. They dumb down the weapons, and they dumb down the training.

        And, yet… Sweet Jeebus, some of the other gear. Ever have to load crypto and time synch fill into a SINCGARS radio, and you’ll quickly come to the conclusion that it was designed for some genius with a Master’s Degree in Electronic Engineering, sitting in a warm office with a cup of coffee within arms reach. It sure as hell wasn’t designed for some guy who’s at the wrong end of a seventy-two hour exercise who is operating without sleep and after having walked twelve miles up a Korean hill in mixed rain and snow.

        On the one hand, with some equipment, the assumption is that we’re all low-grade morons who can’t figure out the simplest thing. On the other hand, some gear is designed with the mentality that we’re all fully-rested Mensa members with no distractions. Go figure.

        At the root, the thing you have to remember is that the US Army is an organization that simultaneously does not adapt well to change, and yet, on the other hand, is well known for being highly innovative and dynamic in some other areas. We still haven’t digested the fact that the Army is now made up of predominantly high-quality manpower, in some ways. And, yet, in others, we rely on that fact. Try to imagine that they were handing off all the battlefield robotics to the same people they don’t trust to adjust the gas systems on their machine guns, and you’ll have a good idea of what constitutes organizational insanity.

        And, after 25 years in the Army, I still can’t explain why the hell things work that way. I just know that they do, and shake my head.

  • Don Ward

    Well duh. I saw a video with a Special Forces guy duel-wielding a pair of M-60s at full-cyclic rate after he learned the secret mission that he had been on to rescue POWs was an elaborate CIA plot.

  • Kirk

    If the M60 were handled like a LAW, and issued with a set number of rounds and then was discarded as expended, I’d be perfectly happy with it. Trouble was, I was “that guy” back in the arms room, who had the unfortunate duty of keeping those POS up and running.

    Yeah, that barrel held up. Now, tell me about the headless rivets that hold the receiver parts together at the trunnions? How about the welds, which weren’t on the original design, but which have the unfortunate habit of cracking when subjected to the stress of prolonged firing? Better yet, tell me what the op rod and bolt track look like, where they slam into each other at the front of the track?

    More than likely, that gun’s receiver gave up half of its service life during that demonstration. Prolonged firing when it has gotten good and hot leads to interesting things happening with all those rivets, as they don’t expand the same way as the receiver flats and stampings do, which leads to a lot of wear around those rivets and holes, leading in turn to the whole assembly loosening up in short order.

    The only way to “fix” the inherent idiocy of the basic M60 design would be to pull the entire gun off of the tripod, and put something else in its place. These “firepower demonstration” videos don’t mean much, especially where it counts–Service life. I’d bet a paycheck or two that those guns they used in the videos I’ve seen showing stuff like this no longer meet the standards for serviceability from the -10, let alone the -34P. I’ve seen guns we did that sort of thing with in the Army, and which were perfectly tight when they went up on the gun line. They got back off, and were so loose that I could demonstrate a good quarter-inch of play when you held the front trunnion in one hand and then took the rear one in the other and twisted.

    In short? These videos are a meaningless publicity stunt, unless you’ve got the money, time, and manpower to make supporting what is essentially a disposable weapon as your primary service MG.

    • dave

      damn good post

    • William_C1

      As far as I know the M60E4 and later are extensive redesigns compared to the E3 and all earlier variants. The M60 series will probably never be as robust as the M240/FN MAG which is built like a brick sh*thouse but it is lighter.

      • Kirk

        William, the fundamental issues I’m talking about haven’t been addressed, at all. The receiver is still built up out of numerous thin stampings which have been riveted together with mostly headless rivets, a few headed ones, and some welds. This manner of construction is what allows the M60 to be as light as it is, and if you redesigned the receiver to fix the issue…? Wave bye-bye to the advantage of lightness.

        Then, theres the issue of how the morons who copied the FG42/Lewis Gun mechanism failed to understand a couple of critical features that they left out for some reason. The key one is that bolt track, which on the FG42, has a lateral cut at the front of it. On that weapon, the op rod “tower” never touches the inside front of that track, which reduces the amount of maintenance required exponentially.

        Face it–The M60 is a irretrievably bad weapon, especially from the standpoint of keeping the damn things running in the field. Look up Peter Kokalis, and see if you can find some of his articles detailing what he found when he went looking at the guns the El Salvadorans were using. A real eye-opener, those are. The M60 should never, ever have been adopted by anyone, anywhere. I can just about guarantee the Danes are going to regret their decision in a couple of years, once they find out what it takes to keep a fleet of those things running safely in the field. It will not be cheap.

        • Wetcoaster

          The Germans look like they’re ready to replace the MG3, so the Danes might be able to pick those up surplus if they’re pressed for guns and funds. Otherwise, FN MAG production is still going strong, so reverting to the MAG is ‘just’ a matter of money and logistics.

          Always did find it funny that the 240 was based on the BAR’s action.

          Is the receiver construction also the difference between the MAG and the scaled-up 7.62mm Minimis (Mk. 48?)

          • Kirk

            Totally different weapons. The MAG-58 is basically a BAR action turned upside-down, with the feed system and trigger mechanism of the MG42 grafted on. The Minimi is FN’s version of the PK, scaled down from the original prototype, which was in 7.62X51. The Mk48 was scaled back up from the Minimi, completing the circle. FN did some things with the design that I wish they hadn’t, like drastically reducing the thickness of the receiver stamping, and not boxing the design the way the PK was. It is actually kind of arguable whether or not the Minimi/Mk48 designs were inspired by the PK, but if you look at them closely enough, they sure have a hell of a lot in common.

          • Wetcoaster

            Ahh, that makes sense then

          • M

            Un, i think the Danes already use the MG3s

          • Wetcoaster

            Yeah, they’re the ones replacing it with the M60E6s, aren’t they? Or did I get my wires crossed somehwere?

          • M

            Well, your earlier suggested they pick up the surplus German MG3s but the Danes are looking to move to a different platform.

          • Wetcoaster

            Ahhh, I was making a snide remark about the Danes having to replace the M60s in short order (by going back to the MG3s).

            Happened to Canada with the Chinook. Sometimes the intended replacement doesn’t work out and you just have to revert back to the previous design.

    • law-abiding-citizen

      As a former M-60 gunner in a transportation company, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that what was just as bad as all the stuff youmentioned N was the complete nightmare the M-60 was to disassemble, clean, & reassemble. The M-240 is far more reliable, & WAAAYYYY easier to clean (especially when you ditch the CLP for some real solvents & lube) 😉

      • Kirk

        Yeah, tell me about it. Training new gunners on that gun was a freaking nightmare, and you often found yourself endlessly repeating all the possible permutations of how it could be misassembled, versus teaching the gunners how to use the damn thing in combat.

        I will say one thing, however–Part of the reason they started having as many problems with the guns as they did during my generation in the Army had a lot to do with the swap of Break-Free CLP for the old-school LSA. Without the cushioning effect you got with LSA, the parts just beat the ever-loving snot out of each other. I wish I could say I figured that out immediately, but the reason for all the excess wear I was seeing during maintenance in the arms room did not dawn on me for close to twenty years, and only as we were turning the guns in for the M240. Break-Free is fine for the M16, but the MGs need something more substantial.

        • Tom Currie

          Training gunners to operate and maintain ANY machine gun appears to be somewhere between difficult and impossible today. Which makes me wonder how several generations of far less educated soldiers managed to learn to clear, disassemble, clean, inspect, assemble, adjust, load, and fire the classic M2 machine gun throughout WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and numerous smaller conflicts (not even counting its use by various third world countries) before that same machine gun became too complicated for our current highly educated soldiers to operate in the 21st century.

          • Kirk

            It’s not the troops. The problem stems from the institution, which does not emphasize excellence in training, or require real knowledge by the NCO corps. This is the organization that did away with skill testing, back in the 1990s, don’t forget. Quality training is a lost art, I’m afraid.

            You also have the issues stemming from personnel turbulence down at the lowest levels. More often than not, you’ll get a gun team properly trained and qualified on the basics, and that usually means fate and circumstances are about to have their way with you. Like the 1SG will lose his driver to PCS orders, and your AG just happens to be the guy picked as replacement for him.

        • n0truscotsman

          Did somebody ever try grease?

          I wonder if that would have solved many of the problems associated with CLP.

          • Kirk

            Once they went to CLP, that was all that was authorized. You couldn’t even order the old stuff, and it wasn’t until the Mk19 came on the scene that we could get LSA again.

            I don’t think the guys who made the decision to go to an “Break-Free only” solution really knew what they were doing, or looked at the effects on the non-M16 weapons in the system.

        • law-abiding-citizen

          Actually, CLP may do, or be good enough for the M-16/M-4 platform, but as a former armorer, I’d argue that saying it’s fine is a bit of a stretch – at least with all the other superior modern lubes & solvents now available. CLP gels when it gets too cold, guns & varnishes when it gets too hot, & somehow attracts dust worse than just about any non-mineral based solvent.
          I did o e deployment as a door gunner o a Chinook, & when I switched to a silicone based lube (Outer’s Tri-Lube) on my M-240s, I immediately solved all of my feed/cycling issues, & picked up 15 – 20 rounds per minute. At the end of a night of doing infils & exfils in the middle of the desert, my guns were still less dusty inside & out, easier to clean the piston & bolt, & fired better than they ever did when I was using CLP. There’s a reason the Spec Ops guys use stuff like Frog Lube & other non-CLP chemicals.

    • n0truscotsman

      My first experience with the sixty was when I was a private in Europe during the late 80s.

      I remember it as a POS and that the M240 was better in every conceivable way, with the exception of weight. But considering that the M60 was inferior as a mounted GPMG and helo door gun, the M240 was a welcome replacement.

      It received the fate that it deserved. I cant believe that it still has a cult following though. And Denmark’s recent adoption of the new E6 seems to reinvigorated discussion about this controversial GPMG.

  • idahoguy101

    The M60 was supposed to replace both the .30 caliber belt fed Brownings, and the magazine fed Browning Automatic Rifle as a Squad level weapons. That was the criteria for it being lighter than the FN MAG et al…
    And yes, I know there was a full auto version of the M14 rifle. But it work out. It was too light. There was a reason the BAR weighed twenty pounds!

  • Iggy

    850 rounds in one go is all well and good, but can you make a cup of tea afterwards? Water cooled still winning in my book :P.

  • Tom Currie

    The M60 was a lot happier firing those long continuous bursts than the 20-25 round bursts that the manual called for and especially than the stupid 5-10 round bursts that some misguided shooters liked to use. Short bursts just chewed up the parts into bits and pieces.

    As a tanker, my usual load was a 750 round belt (from the same mini can you mentioned – since it contained two 750 round belts) which was usually two bursts, sometimes three, fired sitting with the gun lying across my lap until I lifted it slightly to aim & fire. Dismounted the load was a 300 round belt in a bag slung over one shoulder while the gun was slung over the other shoulder.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    Wow, that’s just over 3.5% of what John Browning did during his acceptance trials.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    From my understanding of physics and parachute operations, there would be no way your brass could get anywhere near the tail rotor. Not only will gravity pull it down before it gets there, you have that fan on top. Unless you’re standing the bird on its tail.
    Did I see someone drop a grenade in there?

  • Jamie Clemons

    Wrap some bacon around that barrel.

  • Robert L. Rice

    I loved that bad boy,I used it in Vietnam,the only thing I didn’t like was the weight,after humping for a few hours,,it was like carrying an elephant….

  • john4637

    First time I saw the M-60 I thought of the old toy manufacturer saying, ” If it’s Mattel, it’s swell!” Only problem was I laughingly said it out loud and the Gunny did’nt think it too funny!

  • Girza

    Nath, is all you do here white knight for subpar US weapons which you must prove are good in spite of long histories of lacking performance? It sure seems like it.
    Lemme see here… M4 post, M4 post M4 post, M4 post, M4 post, M60 post. All you need now are ones for the Reisling and the Krag. Now why don’t you tell us all about how the Gyrojet and the AR18 are world class platforms which just had the misfortune to have to measure up to things called standards and competitin?