Yeah, me too. It always goes off when you pull the trigger and it kills what you hit.
That idiot site's push of the M60 as "the best Cold War medium machinegun" is not based on reality. It was a basic forging surrounded by thin stampings and plastic that had to be babied to keep going.
That writer's probably on SACO Defense's payroll: no other countries bought that cheapo weapon - and our NATO allies stuck with the FN-MAG or derivations of the WWII MG-42.
“...the M-60 as ‘the best Cold War medium machinegun is not based on fact. .... No other countries bought [the M-60] and our NATO allies stuck with the FN-MAG or derivations of the WWII MG-42.”
First of all, the M-60 WAS a derivative of the MG-42, which also was constructed of forgings surrounded by sheet metal stampings. To reduce both weight and cost of manufacture. The M-60’s design was modified to reduce the MG-42’s rate of fire, which burned up ammo and barrels at a rate which was unacceptable to the US Army Ordinance.
I’ve served with the M-60 both in its Light Machine Gun configuration (as it was used in VietNam) and in its medium machine gun configuration (on pintle mounts on jeeps). Yes, the M-60 required careful, detail oriented, well trained field cleaning and maintenance, and a skilled unit armorer to back up the field maintenance. Field maintenance required that the assistant Machine Gunner have the TOE spare barrel, spare parts kit, repair tools, and cleaning kit, all in the Spare Barrel Bag. In combat this was rarely the case. I recall one mission in 1969, I (as Assistant Machine Gunner) had no spare barrel, and only M-16 cleaning tools and supplies. Worse, the main barrel had a burned out chamber, in which the cartrige cases kept splitting. Yet we kept it in action. [No thanks to me; I knew what defective condition the gun was in, how dangerous it was to keep firing it in that condition, and kept my distance. Both I and the Machinegunner were new to the unit, and I suspect they were testing us.] This was with the M-60 in LMG configuration.
Later, in the National Guard, I used the M60 in MMG configuration, usually mounted on a vehicle or pintle mount. Never had a bit of trouble, as long as we kept the guns properly cleaned and maintained. I believe the M-60’s bad reputation came from when it was issued to less well educated troops from less technically oriented societies who did not understand or practice careful cleaning and field maintenance. And yes, the M-60 was sold/loaned/given to countries, and political movements, whose soldiers match that description.
In the end, however, the M-240 is more reliable than the M-60, with far fewer stoppages per thousands of rounds fired. Not surprising, given that it is a later design.