re: #266 William Barnett-Lewis

There are countries still making the mistake of buying that POS? Their taxpayers are being ripped off.

Read the Soldier Systems piece, Will. Some of the comments are very much like yours and someone from U.S. Ordnance actually answers them to explain the changes they’ve made. The relevant comment is here, and I’ll quote part of it:

The Danish program is for the US Ordnance M60E6 not the old M60 you are familiar with.
With your extensive experience I’m sure you will then recognize how addressing each of points has resulted in the battle tested AND IMPROVED M60E6.

Here is a list of the issues we have addressed that I have culled out of your comments above

1. On the M60E6 the weapon can be loaded and top cover opened and closed with the bolt forward or with the weapon charged and bolt to rear. In addition we redesigned the feed cam so the system has 30% improved belt pull to overcome miss aligned ammo, debris in the links, and twisted belts. In fact we test our M60E6 models to the same belt pull standard as the US M240.
2. Our M60E6 features and improved OPERATING ROD and TRIGGER to PVT Dumbass proof the system
3. We corrected several areas where the system could be assembled incorrectly
a. Soldier Proof Reversible gas piston
b. Simplified gas system with fewer parts and eliminated they need for safety wire
c. Trigger retaining pin can only be inserted from the RIGHT correct side
d. I joined US Ordnance after a 15 year carrier in the technology sector so I was not “chosen to be anyone’s successors”
4. We have an extensive collections of transferable machine guns in our reference library and we are constantly going back to these models to check on field expedient improvements that were implemented. We also have 14 years of continuous user feedback regarding the systems we supply around the globe.
5. Likely unknown to you as the Company Armorer was an extensive list of Product Improvement Programs (PIP) that occurred in the late 1970s and 1980 on the M60. Some were obvious like the change from triple wire drive spring to the single wire and the change to double sear notch instead of one (see PVT Dumbass again).
a. One such improvement that had little external evidence was a change in the receiver assembly. Certain chamfers in the receiver channel were redesigned and the riveting procedure was changed. This did away with most of the receiver stretch you reference.
b. On our M60E4, E6 and M60D Enhanced models our channels our heat treated to modern standards and receiver stretch is an issue I have never seen in my 12 years at US Ordnance.
6. Our system still has the stellite barrel which you agree is a great feature.