they weren't that bad, but they weren't that great either.
>>64702753they were fine but predictably had some problems toward the end of their service life. 30 years of use, abuse and lack of maintenance (nobody in the military does maintenance) by literal retards tends to do that.
No. They're shorter and over 5lb lighter than an FN. And when they were still maintained, they worked great.By the 80s, all our M60s, 1911s, M16s, ect were clapped out: wear and lack of maintenance. That's why we adopted a ton of new shit by the late 80s.So when we tested the FN, it was against an M60 already on its last leg.
>>64702786>They're shorter and over 5lb lighter than an FNThe MAG58?
>>64702792Yes
>>64702792>>64702802Went to make sure, it's not quite 5lb less, but is about 7 inches shorter
Light, very smooth shooting. Could be pretty accurate as well if you bothered to make sure the barrels' front sights were regulated to the gun. (Rear sight stayed on the gun, front sight was part of the barrel/gas system assy).Crappy sears though. You had to get off the trigger, no slow release or follow through. It'd chip the shit out of the sear and the carrier's sear surfaces if you were slow. Rivets holding the tracks in the receiver would work loose. You had to actually look at the piece and know what you were looking at.The "D" and "C" kits were just plain weird, and looked like afterthought engineering. At least the "D" kits worked reasonably well.
>>64702856>very smooth shootingOne of the ways my autism manifests is in the form of watching videos of M60s shooting. They practically just vibrate on your shoulder
>>64702901You feel it moving, it's just very even feeling. The only thing close is the old Lewis gun, which makes sense, the '60 is basically a very improved Lewis gun with a modified Browning/Mg42 feed system.A good contrast is a Mg34. They feel like they are working on the edge of coming apart, and you feel the innards slamming into the buffer before slamming a round into the chamber and firing. The later Mg42 though firing faster, does not feel like it's about to batter itself into junk, and the Mg74 (Austrian Mg3) is even more "gentle", compared to the Mg34.The M60 has it's flaws, but they did get the thing to where it does not feel like it's working hard or going to come apart.
>>64702753having the bipod on the barrel is retarded
>>64702753
>>64702781>(nobody in the military does maintenance)This. 100%
>>64702988Of all the complaints that have been spouted off on the internet, I've never once heard the complaint of the bipod pushing your shots high.
>>64703143you have to carry extra bipods with extra barrels for no reason. What kind of retard designed the M60 like that? Why not put the bipod on the handguard?
>>64703143NTA, I've heard it plenty of times. It messes with the barrel's harmonics, but mostly only people shooting precision rifles tend to care about keeping the bipod off the barrel.>>64703179Another good point.
>>64702988>having the bipod on the barrel is retardedMeh, it was silly, but a non issue.>>64703143>Of all the complaints that have been spouted off on the internet, I've never once heard the complaint of the bipod pushing your shots high.It didn't. It was never an issue. It was just cumbersome.>>64703179The bipod on the barrel was supposedly to improve handling of a hot tube, in that you had a barrel assy that'd mostly stand by itself and expose most of it's surface to air.Later versions did mount the bipod and most of the gas system to the actual receiver.
>>64703380>The bipod on the barrel was supposedly to improve handling of a hot tubeso that's why they issued an asbestos glove for barrel replacement?
>>64702856Based on what you wrote it seems to fulfil a recurring theme with US service weapons - generally nice to shoot, often very innovative or employ some advanced technology, but also kinda overcomplicated and more difficult to maintain than it really needs to be...
>>64703179In practice, spare barrels weren't carried into the bush. Do I think that's good for the gun to be fired a lot on 1 barrel? No. But it's how they did it, and from what I've been able to tell, historically speaking, no one actually changed barrels out as much as they were supposed to in combat. >>64703198I'd only ever heard about benchrest guys worrying about that. Not coping, but maybe the barrel is thick enough to not flex much
>>64703483Not him, but maybe it could if you absolutely had to? I'm brainstorming
>>64703897You had me until>but also kinda overcomplicated and more difficult to maintain than it really needs to be...I would say more that they're sometimes kind of odd internally, as a side effect of being innovative and cutting edge as you were saying
