Came across this video on the youtube:

World War 2 Machine Gun Shootout: US versus German (1944) - YouTube

While the film make a point about the accuracy of US weapons, I can't help but notice how stable the tripod mounted German MG 42 is while pour out a huge volume of fire.

If I recall, the M60 design was based on the MG 42.

That guy with the M3 must have truly been a marksman. Having handled all three sub guns mentioned I'm amazed that the M3 out performed the MP40. I'm not dissing the M3, my dad carried one by choice in the Pacific during WW2 and the guys that were issued them in my unit liked them. I notice now mention of portability was mentioned on in comparing any of the firearms in the test.

I actually snorted when they said the M3 "grease gun" was more accurate than the MP40! That MG42 sure did look stable didn't it? I earned the German Schützenschnur back in 75 or so but I had to earn it with rifle and pistol, not with the MG-3! I told one German soldier the course of fire was impossible, given only 15 rounds and AFAIR, 5 targets.. he flopped down and showed me just how it was done! I just couldn't get off the trigger fast enough to engage all targets!

__________________
Old paratrooper in NC

The big problam with the MG42 was, somebody had to hump all that ammo it ate so fast.

I qualified with the M3/M3A1 yearly while in the regular Army. It was very accurate out to 50 yds or so. (they said the max effective range was 100 yds....well maybe) They fired slow enough that you could trigger 1 rd at a time.

Very nice, thanks for sharing.

I shot the MG42's successor the MG3, and have to admit a weapon I cannot handle properly shootingwise. Sure have needed more training...

__________________
Jorge

Knowing what I know about shooting and especially weapons that have seen combat, I'd like to know if the German rifles were collected on the battlefield, and were the US rifles from the armory, new? Point being, a smoked barrel on a 42 is only 1 hot session away, and if that thing was a combat rifle, the barrel was likely worked to death.
They proved really, really accurate until worked over really hard.

Thanks for the link .You do'nt think our govt. would say there's was better that our's would you ????

Actually, it was based on the FG42, which was gas operated. I believe it uses the MG42 belt feed mechanism, making the M60 essentially a belt fed Lewis gun, minus the clock spring/rack and pinion recoil system.

An actual copy of the MG42 in .30-06 was commissioned during the war. Some imbecile took no account of the difference in length between the 7.92mm Mauser (57mm) and .30-06 (63mm) cases with predictable results.

We didn't have a decent infantry machinegun from the time that the M60 was adopted until the M240 made the transition from coax and loader's gun to ground gun.

The Australians adopted the M60. I'm surprised they don't hate us more than the Iranians do...

Just what the heck is wrong with the M60? I love the M60. I love how easy it is to change barrels. I love how easy it is to disassemble for cleaning. I love how reliable it is. I love the cartridge it uses. I love how it sounds. There is nothing I don't love about the M60.

How about the flimsy hinged top plate? I'm betting nobody loves that....

What's not to love about the M60?

1. Ease of improper reassembly of the gas system.
2. Incredibly poorly designed trigger mechanism.
3. Improperly placed bipod.

I remember once in ROTC, running through a field of tall grass carrying an M60. Halfway to my destination, I found myself holding the gun in my left hand, the trigger mechanism in my right, and one was not attached to the other.

If it weren't for some nameless idiot, we could have had a real gun, the MG42, in .30-06 and doubtless eventually 7.62x51mm.

And regarding the 7.62x51mm, the M73 and M219 were chambered for it. They were unmitigated garbage. My favorite rifle cartridge is the .30-06. The M1918 Chauchat was chambered for it. That didn't keep it from being a truly execrable firearm.

Hated the bipod, but tripod-mounted it did give you a way to put some firepower downrange if you needed to. But then, if you needed to do that, what you really needed was artillery

Neat film BUT; that is a training / propaganda film. It would not do to say that the German guns were better.

__________________
Sceva
OGCA SWCA NRA

There is a joke that has been floating around since before most of us were born that says the only reason the US Army did not adopt the MG42 was it did not cost enough to manufacture.

The german MG42 was called thye "meat grinder".

[QUOTE=cmort666;136752382]An actual copy of the MG42 in .30-06 was commissioned during the war. Some imbecile took no account of the difference in length between the 7.92mm Mauser (57mm) and .30-06 (63mm) cases with predictable results.

Some years ago I saw the original on display at the Springfield Armory NHS. I don't think it's on display now.

There's a [much more techical] discussion of the M60 going on right now at the ForgottenWeapons site. There's a lot of good information regarding heat treating of certain parts (and parts of certain parts), as well as the efficacy of LSA vs Breakfree in relation to reliability (and long term serviceability) of the M60.

The M60 suffered from the same sort of lack of attention to detail experienced by the early .30-06 versions of the Lewis Gun. On the latter, the camming ratio of bolt to op rod was not properly calculated when compared to versions chambered for 7.65x53mm and .303 British. This led to too violent of an action.