A question for someone with experience in or knowledge of the military: is it a standard tactic for one man to carry aro
-
bobcat41702 — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 07:55 AM)
I would suppose that it would require a big, strong fellow to pack around an M-60 and fire it from the hip - like we see Animal Mother (played by Adam Baldwin) do in the film.
(According to his IMDb bio, Baldwin is 6'4"/193cm.)
http://www.imdb.com/board/20000284/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
there has been technological advancement, but how little man himself has changed. -
SevernSarge — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 07:02 AM)
GunHillTrain,
I was an M60 machine gunner in the army, and manned one in several different combat operations.
To answer your question, no, it is not standard operating procedure for one soldier to man an M60 machine gun. Each gunner has an assistant gunner to load and feed ammunition, as well as spot targets.
That being said, you do practice firing it from the hip, alone, to build up some proficiency, just in case. There is an ammo can attachment that feeds the ammo into the weapon for that kind of operation. But, the preferred method is to fire it from ground level, using the bipod, with an assistant gunner.
Cheers!
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
-
SevernSarge — 10 years ago(September 10, 2015 07:00 AM)
The recoil is definitely stronger than an M-16, but the 60, or "Pig", as we called it, is so much heavier, it absorbs the recoil better. It's a chore, but possible with practice.
Oh, and the M-14 is one of the nicest weapons I've ever fired. I'd take it over an M-16 any day.
Cheers!
It's only a flesh wound.
-
delriosong — 9 years ago(November 26, 2016 02:00 PM)
But, the preferred method is to fire it from ground level, using the bipod, with an assistant gunner.
The preferred method was to fire it mounted on the M-122 tripod.
I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more
Del Rio's Song -
aftermidnight04 — 10 years ago(September 26, 2015 04:11 PM)
well considering that the Air Force does it differently, I always thought that it was funny that some big hulking dude carrying around the belt driven gun, within the tiniest female carrying the ammo box which weighed more. That was pretty standard on the two departments I did, but then again that must have been the AF cop way. But, no it's a placement gun, thing weighs a lot.
-
movies789 — 10 years ago(October 13, 2015 09:57 PM)
I was a fire team leader with the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam. My machine-gunner carried his M-60 at just above hip-level, supported with a strap over the opposite shoulder, with about 2 to 3 feet of ammo hanging off (generally slung back over the M-60 till needed). Like those carrying M-16s, he was fully prepared to fire from a standing position when a firefight began unexpectedly. As soon as possible, he would deploy the bipod, shoot from a prone position, and begin coupling lengths of ammo passed over by other squad-members. There was no designated assistant gunner that functioned exclusively as such; the guy nearest to him would help couple the strings of ammo and feed it sufficient to eliminate the tension and prevent jamming. As noted in a previous reply, the substantial weight of the M-60 had the effect of absorbing much of the recoil.
As for the M-14 versus the M-16, I agree that the M-14 was by far the superior weapon during a firefight. The only thing is, the M-14 was substantially heavier and - more critically - loaded M-14 magazines were WAY heavier (and bulkier) than those of the M-16. Considering that you're also carrying several days' C-rations and canteens of water, personal effects, claymore mines, trip-flares, C-4 explosive, extra M-60 ammo for the machine-gunner, and probably a mortar round for the mortar platoon, it adds up. By the time you get loaded up to trudge a few thousand meters for the day, you're happy to have the smaller M-16 and its lighter ammo. -
movies789 — 10 years ago(October 15, 2015 09:20 PM)
- See the weapon and ammo size and weight considerations discussed in my previous post.
- The M-14 round is substantially bigger and more powerful than the M-16 round. Its military features aside, the M-16 is essentially a varmint rifle.
- In addition to the greater power of its cartridge, the M-14 has a longer barrel and, with it, a longer sight-radius; all that, combined, makes it a more accurate weapon.
- The M-14 is a very rugged, durable weapon that is resistant to grit and gunpowder residue and is relatively easy to maintain. The M-16 is notoriously sensitive to grit, dirt, mud, and gunpowder residue, and was a bit more complicated to clean.
I recall that my own M-16's trigger assembly was held into the rifle, at the top of the trigger guard, by a thick pin on either side of it, which had the unfortunate tendency (in my rifle) to vibrate to the right and disengage after every eighty rounds or so (unless I had the presence of mind to keep tapping it back to the left with a magazine), rendering it nonfunctional until I had a few peaceful minutes to pry it back into place with a cleaning rod (as a pry-bar) and a magazine (as a hammer). Most disconcerting; moments like that made me long for my old M-14.
-
RodneyAnonymous — 10 years ago(February 04, 2016 01:09 PM)
The SAW did not exist in the Vietnam era, though its "spiritual predecessor" did in the form of the Stoner M63 (the Stoner seeing only very limited use).
Further, the SAW is, and always has been, an individual weapon in the Army. There are two SAW gunners in a typical infantry rifle squad, one in each fireteam. That said, the TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) is different between the services, between branches in each service, and between units within branches, so it is entirely possible that some units designate the SAW as a crew-served weapon.
All that said - I also humped a "pig" for several years, mostly in the 2d Ranger Bn in the early '90s. The TOE called for a weapons squad in each platoon, with three MG teams, each team consisting of three men (gunner, assistant gunner, and ammo bearer). I never actually SAW a three man team, however, as we always operated in two-man teams: gunner and "EB" or "everything bearer." The EB carried the tripod, spare barrel, spare barrel bag, T&E mechanism, and (usually) 600 rounds of ammunition. Because this equipment/ammo alone weighs in the neighborhood of 75 pounds, the EB did not usually carry a rifle, but carried an M9 pistol.
Of course, the US military has largely phased out the M-60, replacing it in some instances with the M-240 (a version of the FN MAG machine gun) and in others with the M249 SAW. Likewise, TOEs change, but it is still not common practice to have a single soldier assigned to carry/man/maintain the M240, as it is still considered a "crew-served" weapon.
Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut. -
stevekaczynski — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 11:40 AM)
Cinematically, it is a powerful scene - Animal Mother charging along firing an M60 one-handed while feeding the belt with the other. I doubt whether in reality the gun could be fired like that, even by someone big and hefty like Adam Baldwin, and even if it was, someone doing that would be unlikely to hit anything.
"Chicken soup - with a beep straw." -
RodneyAnonymous — 9 years ago(December 15, 2016 11:50 AM)
It absolutely can be fired that way, and you don't have to be an "Animal" to do it. But yes, it is exceptionally inaccurate.
Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.