• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

What's the difference between the M60 and M240B?

SKumar

SKumar

NES Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
11,223
Likes
26,363
Location
Middlesex
Feedback: 38 / 0 / 0
Originally, I wanted to post this in "military bubbas", but being that I'm not a veteran, I dare not tread on sacred ground.

Based on my brief research, it seems like both are categorized as "general purpose" machine guns, but the 240 was specifically meant to be mounted (to a humvee or tank), hence the bulkier design?
Maybe someone can tell me the relationship between the two? Did 240 steal the m60's limelight or was it viewed as having a completely different role?

Wiki entries here:
M240
M60
 
Whoah.

The difference is several years' worth of MG development. 240B was European and developed postwar, M60 was developed domestically based on 1930s German designs. Plus the 240B functions more reliably and has a higher cyclic rate, though I believe it's heavier and longer.

And? the 240B doesn't have a damn leaf spring you need to tie down with boobytrap wire before it pops off into the foliage.

Same role. The 240B replaced the M60. Note, I'm only speaking about the dismounted light-fighter versions of both.
 
It's been twelve hours, man. Go ahead and post in Military Bubbas. They'll know a lot more than I do.
 
Picton said:
It's been twelve hours, man. Go ahead and post in Military Bubbas. They'll know a lot more than I do.
Click to expand...
This, just because you didn't serve doesn't mean you can't go in to ask a question to those who've had hands on time with both weapons. If anyone gives you shit because you've posted there and didn't serve, they're being a dick.
 
The M60 is lighter, but its not nearly as rugged and reliable as the M240B.
The M60 is riveted together in places and as the round count climbs, the rivets loosen up and the gun starts to fall apart.
 
You can engage and destroy targets at 1800 meters w a 240b and a MGO. You were lucky to get suppressive fire at 1000-1200 with a 60

240B doesn’t have malfunctions. Things amazing. Little bit longer and four (I think) pounds heavier.

rate of fire was 1000-1200 rounds per min compared to 6-800 with the pig.
If you went right from carrying a -60 to a 240 dismounted it sucked, the length and weight was awkward and Joe needs something to c*** about. After early 2000’s when the -60 was pretty much gone, no one noticed
 
Well, then there's the MK48... although I don't know how widespread its use is yet. Another FN gun that's lighter than both.

-Mike
 
The 240 is based on the FN MAG 58 which is a GPMG (or medium machine gun) designed for supporting infantry attacks.
The Marine Corps first used it in the coaxial and pintle mode on the LAV-25 which went into service in 1983.
At that time the M60 was the medium machine gun used in Infantry battalions.
I got my first close look at a MAG 58 in Nov. 1990 while training in Brazil.
In early 1995 the machine gun section in my platoon at Guantanamo Bay fielded the M240G (ground) to replace the M60E3.
We were told that we were the first unit in the Corps to field the new MG.
When I got back to an deployable unit (3/6) in '98, all the M60s were gone and replaced with the M240G.

Training in Brazil:
FN MAG 58 Brazil Nov 90.jpg
 
Cap'n Mike said:
The M60 is lighter, but its not nearly as rugged and reliable as the M240B.
The M60 is riveted together in places and as the round count climbs, the rivets loosen up and the gun starts to fall apart.
Click to expand...

The M240L addressed the M240's weight. The M240L is lighter than an M60 and they are in actual production. Theres another lighter version M240P out there, I've never seen one in the wild though not that I would I'm out of the loop.

I was to young to see any M60's around still, we all had 240's. They are very popular, nearly universally praised in comparisons to mega turds like the M9 and M249's in desperate need of refurb.

The 240 is an FN MAG, came out in the late 50's, more or less.

drgrant said:
Well, then there's the MK48... although I don't know how widespread its use is yet. Another FN gun that's lighter than both.

-Mike
Click to expand...

That things about the same weight as the L
 
I was a Pig-Gunner while in during peacetime and never got to meet the M240... but I'd like to. 😘
 
My coolest firearms experience was when we were doing an M60 shoot in a ranch pit north of town; this was for ROTC, using ARNG guns. We had about 300 rounds left at the end of the day and all our training objectives met, so our NCO let me and another senior fire the pig without the bipod, all crouched down with the buttstock braced against the inner thigh (after being careful to move yer wedding tackle out of the way).

Wow.

Awkward stance, but the thing felt rock-steady and you could easily control it while walking the rounds in. I always enjoyed the M60. Later I had M240s in my rifle platoon, but I never did fire one personally.
 
Cheecckk it out! All this machine gun talk got me thinking about the days of ROTC (2000ish?), and look what I found!
Me with the ol Pig
B639B8CE-8C66-4260-B787-37AF2848C35E.jpeg
Practicing the 240 in the prone
95963EF8-F7AB-421A-9743-C1FB481A6AD3.jpeg
Practicing with dummy grenades on the A2
D9132D45-8078-435C-AD06-9BBA176FCBF7.jpeg
Never got a chance to fire Ma Deuce :(
9DCCB7E0-AD96-4DE2-A744-07710ADDFCE0.jpeg
Us taking turns dumping blanks after a night exercise. I remember DS bitching at us because the barrel was glowing orange.
F4F32F45-9B9E-4E10-B783-418BE2394294.jpeg

Also, thanks to the military vets for answering my original question. Seems like the M60 was based on a very old design, and the military needed a solid GPMG.
 
Christian said:
This, just because you didn't serve doesn't mean you canIf anyone gives you shit because you've posted there and didn't serve, they're being a dick.
Click to expand...

According to SOME guys here, you didn’t even serve if you DID and never saw combat. Some people are just cucks and like watching people have at their wife while they watch and do things to themselves...that’s just life, man.

And just so you don’t feel bad, I did (well didn’t REALLY do) 8 years in the Marine Corps Reserves and never got to shoot a Ma Duce either...it was one of those things where I was too valuable to the company going on all the convoy recovery missions that made me ineligible as a machine gunner (at least in garrison...which is where I always was...because I never saw combat, so was never REALLY a Marine at all).

:/
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
Well, then there's the MK48... although I don't know how widespread its use is yet. Another FN gun that's lighter than both.

-Mike
Click to expand...

The Mk48 was originally just a SOCOM weapon and was very widespread in that community. However, it started being issued to conventional Infantry units (starting with some airborne units like the 173rd) in.... I think the 2010 timeframe. But don't hold me to that. It is still not that widespread in the conventional Army, but you'll find it in Infantry and maybe Cav Scout units.
 
enbloc said:
I was a Pig-Gunner while in during peacetime and never got to meet the M240... but I'd like to. 😘
Click to expand...

The M240 is a sweet sweet sewing machine. Though, I always had it mounted and was never on a weapons squad with it. Given my AO, I preferred it over the M2. The rate of fire was really beneficial when shooting from a moving vehicle. It was also nice to be able to shoulder it when going over bumps (which isn't any different than the M60, of course).
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Mike said:
Whoops
Thats a MK-19 Grenade launcher
Different Animal than an M2 Browning Machine Gun

Love seeing all the woodland BDUs, that takes me back.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. I knew it didn't look exactly like an M2.
And yeah the woodland BDUs were tossed for digital camo maybe a year or two after these pics were taken.
 
SKumar said:
Thank you for clarifying. I knew it didn't look exactly like an M2.
And yeah the woodland BDUs were tossed for digital camo maybe a year or two after these pics were taken.
Click to expand...

They were still issuing BDU's in basic up until 2005/2006. The 2006 recruits were coming out with ACUs. I believe from memory that ACUs started to appear in late 2005 early 2006. And boy, what a mistake that was color wise. jesus christ.

It was nice from the point of view that they didnt need to be ironed. What a complete pain in the ass that was.
 
Picton said:
//....And? the 240B doesn't have a damn leaf spring you need to tie down with boobytrap wire before it pops off into the foliage.
//
Click to expand...
Now that's proof you've "been there!"

The 240C was first used by the US, to my knowledge, to replace the problematic M73 MG in the M60 (and M48) series tanks. M60 [tank] basic load was 7,000 rounds of 7.62 and depending on mission you might carry 10,000 to 13,000 rounds. And you had the laser rangefinder ballistic computer, optical and thermal sights and power turret to aim, so it was an astonishingly capable weapon. For example, theoretically it was possible to break off 4 rounds and shoot a deer at 1,200 meters at night at Fort Knox, if the Range NCO happened to have a deer tag available.....

We fired many thousands of rounds of rounds through them with remarkably few problems, while M73's malfunctioned regularly. They were so reliable that instructors would break the belts to force a malfunction drill. This was in 81-85.

I carried an M60 through the swamps of Aglin AFB for 10 hours during the 2nd last day of Ranger School patrolling, after losing 37 lbs in 50 days. So appreciation of the firepower is greatly tempered by that memory.
 

Similar threads

WWII and Uncle Pete
Replies
1
Views
82
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
VA and NICS
Replies
3
Views
153
Rat187
Rat187
56 years ago the TET-68 Offensive kicked off
Replies
7
Views
356
M60
M60
The Last Marauder has gone home. RIP
Replies
7
Views
385
greencobra
greencobra
Habits, good bad and stupid.
Replies
18
Views
656
rali
R
Back
Top Bottom