By Robert Bruce

“The M60E4 is a great weapon and definitely fills the gap between vehicle mounted M240B and dismounted M249 SAW. Scout teams have been taking them out to overwatch and support the snipers, occupying OPs near them and carrying the M60E4 because it is small enough to hump a good distance and has great firepower. Some comments directly from soldiers: The M60E4 is small enough to maneuver in tight places, it allows for easy access entering and exiting vehicles and aircraft, can be shoulder fired in short bursts accurately, does not require a complete crew to operate effectively.” Email to US Ordnance from an officer of 101st Airborne Division in Operation Iraqi Freedom

What’s not to like about a real machine gun that’s significantly lighter than a chunky M240, about the same size as a puny SAW, pumps out powerful 7.62mm rounds with reliability and accuracy, and has long been a force multiplier in elite Navy SEAL Teams? GIs who’ve tried ‘em love ‘em, they’re comparable in price to buy and sustain as the FN guns, they’ve been in the logistics and combat doctrine chains for ever, and they’re 100 percent American designed and built. Slam dunk? Sorry.

The “Screaming Eagles” in Iraq only had a few of the newest Sixties, provided free of charge by US Ordnance in response to their urgent request while forward deployed for the Global War on Terror. US Ord sent a crate full of MK43s (M60E4), spare barrels and spare parts to Fort Campbell and the Army delivered it to Iraq.

Subsequent use in the unforgiving arena of intense urban combat resulted in a number of enthusiastic responses leaking out, but any formalized after action report has apparently been kept on close hold. We are unaware of any plans by the Army for further evaluation and PM Soldier Weapons is moving out at double time to develop a lighter and shorter version of the M240.

Meanwhile, production of M240s and 249s at FN’s South Carolina plant continues at breakneck pace but there remains a substantial backlog. This necessitates keeping large numbers of existing M60s in service with all branches of the US Armed Forces. But these guns are mostly old and tired veterans of decades of hard service and victims of poor maintenance with shoddy and cannibalized parts. What’s going on here?

Life and Times of the M60

Developed in the aftermath of WWII and fielded in 1957, the light and handy 7.62mm NATO caliber M60 General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) has been alternately praised and cursed by GIs who have carried it combat from Vietnam to Iraq and beyond.

Inspired by the WWII German MG42, the M60 was intentionally designed for mass production – cheap and fast on a stamped sheet metal receiver that houses a clever gas operated, carrier-cammed bolt mechanism first seen in the Lewis Gun of WWI. It replaced the Browning-designed M1919 series, built on heavy riveted steel receivers with lots of machining required for its beefy, recoil operated internals.

When the original M60 is good, it is very good; appreciated for its compact size, good handling, mechanical simplicity, quick change barrel, and effective operation from shoulder, hip, bipod, tripod, or vehicle/watercraft/aircraft mounting.

But when it’s bad it deserves its ‘Nam nickname “The Pig.” Punishing combat use in Vietnam’s tropical climate was hard on men and unforgiving of their weapons, adversely affecting all US arms which had been designed primarily for land warfare in Europe. The M60 was lightweight, but correspondingly flimsy, prone to damage and relatively quick to wear out critical parts like the bolt and op rod.

Special emphasis on parts is called for here. With spares and replacements supplied in later decades by unevenly performing, lowest-bid subcontractors, the gun itself can’t be blamed for problems arising mostly from user abuse, poor maintenance and extreme environmental conditions.

Despite its handicaps, the Sixty performed rather well when light weight and mechanical simplicity were preferred vs. the heavy M1919 series .30 caliber guns. Determined to phase out all those old Brownings, the Army began a series of modifications to the basic M60. The M60D came first, a helicopter door gun characterized by its spade grips and prominent ring sight. The solenoid-fired M60E2 was developed about the same time, a coaxial gun for tanks and helo gunships.

The M60E3 followed, dropping five pounds in a major overhaul demanded by the Marine Corps. Easily recognized by pistol grips fore and aft and a receiver mounted bipod freed from the barrel, the weight loss unfortunately came with poor durability and reduced performance.

Over on the Navy side, SEALs liked their regular M60s, used since ‘Nam with sawed-off barrels and no front sights. Some even utilized clever backpacks fitted with flexible feed chutes, capable of delivering a thousand rounds or more when things got particularly hairy. Yeah, the 5.56mm Stoner LMG and the M249 SAW had their place, but there’s no substitute for hard-hitting 7.62mm rounds. Unfortunately, the troubled E3 wasn’t up to the job.

In the early 1990s, SACO responded to Navy Special Warfare’s unique requirements and specifications, developing a retrofit parts package they called M60E4. Quantity deliveries of new guns and E4 parts kits to SEALs and other NAVSPECWAR units began in late 1994, receiving the Navy designation MK43 Mod 0.

Still reasonably light but significantly more reliable and durable than the despised E3, SEAL Team MK43s can be recognized by a distinctive “duckbill” flash suppressor and a positive lock gas cylinder extension that is stubbier and thicker.

SAWing Off The Sixty

Over on the Army side, the 5.56mm M249 Squad Automatic Weapon began taking the automatic rifle’s place in regular infantry units in the mid-1980s. This boost in firepower resulted in official Army doctrine being modified to reduce the number of M60s used in the traditional role of “General Purpose Machine Gun” in most infantry formations. On the other hand, vehicle and aircraft 60s were unaffected by this ruling and continued soldiering on.

While there have been and continue to be fierce debates about the wisdom of all aspects of this, Infantry Board documentation from the period asserts that the Belgian- designed mini machine gun would make up for lack of reach and penetration with one-man portability and high volume of fire.

It is no exaggeration to say that this radical change wasn’t warmly received by all members of the infantry community.

Yes, bootborne movement to contact in offensive operations is faster with the lighter SAW, but once the firefight begins there is little to recommend using anything smaller than 7.62mm. Same deal in defensive operations where bipod and tripodmounted Sixties have significantly superior accuracy at longer range and decidedly deadlier terminal effect than the M249.

At the same time, users of multitudes of aging M60s in tanks, helos and other tactical platforms were developing serious envy for their counterparts in the US Marine Corps. Leathernecks were beginning to get another Belgian designed weapon, the 7.62mm M240, marveling at its astonishing reliability and durability.

Against this background, sufficient pressure was brought to bear in favor of retaining a 7.62mm belt fed weapon for infantry combat. But the burning question was which medium machine gun would be best?

The process of finding an answer began with Fort Benning’s Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab (DBBL, commonly pronounced “dibble”) preparing a detailed list of what the ideal weapon would have to do. This drove specific requirements for technical testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground and more general operational testing at Fort Campbell.

Trial by Fire: Sixty vs. 240

The Army’s big 7.62 belt fed shootout kicked off in January 1994 under the interesting program title of Medium Machine Gun Upgrade Kit. This name actually fits rather well because the only two significant competitors – M60s and M240s – were modified versions of weapons currently in the Army inventory.

SACO’s “Enhanced” M60E3 guns were fitted with a number of product improved parts and the FN 240s were coaxial guns from M1 Abrams tanks, converted for dismounted ground combat with buttstocks, bipods and such; hence the “Upgrade Kit” moniker for both.

Each manufacturer submitted eighteen guns and more than a year of technical torture and tactical trials ensued. This ended in December 1995 when the Army declared the M240 victorious.

Not surprisingly, there were strong critics of the decision then and now, raising objections and citing shortcomings in the process with varying degrees of credibility. Sadly, by keeping a close hold on details of the test regimen and tabulated results, the Army hasn’t helped dispel inevitable misinformation.

What is a matter of public record is the much-cited test results table quantifying two key performance areas; Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS) and Mean Rounds Between Failures (MRBF). Stoppages are jams and failures are parts breaking – both are essential indicators of combat serviceability.

50,000 rounds were fired through both the M60 and the M240. The 240 was a runaway winner in averaging 2,962 MRBS and 6,442 MRBF. The Sixty limped along at 846 MRBS and 1,669 MRBF.

Determined to find and report more facts of the matter, SAR went right to source, Program Manager Soldier Weapons at Picatinny Arsenal. Naturally, our first request was for hard copy of test documentation.

Sorry, came the official answer, “We can’t release any test paperwork until SAR’s request goes through legal.” Seems the specter of defamation lawsuits still looms darkly even after a dozen years have past and even where tabulated test results speak for themselves.

OK, we pressed, how about an interview with Ed Malatesta, the individual who was Product Director/Program Manager for the process? Although since retired from government service, as luck would have it he’s now an independent contractor working at PMSW. A phone interview was agreed to and arranged by officials in surprisingly short order.

In a conference call and subsequent email exchange Malatesta was very emphatic on the following:

SAR: What major factor(s), in your opinion, led to the decision to phase out the M60 in favor of the M240?

Malatesta: Reliability was by far the major factor. The M60s were always breaking and this doomed them almost from the beginning.

SAR: How is this shown in program documentation?

Malatesta: In data reporting the various test results. Based on this, the Army Source Selection Authority, a general officer, wrote in summary, “In view of the above discussions (Reliability, Probability of Hit, Human Factors and Price) and based on an integrated assessment of the above findings (Developmental Tests, Operational Tests, Human Engineering Testing and a Price Assessment), I conclude that Saco (M60) has no reasonable chance for award and should be eliminated from the competitive range, and that a competitive range of one, Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing, Inc. (M240) be established.”

SAR’s candid discussion with Malatesta, coupled with additional research, clearly shows the fundamental problem that, in his words, “doomed” the Sixty. Put aside all the “Enhanced” M60E3’s niceties of lighter weight, portability, balance, controllability in assault fire, easy to parachute with, already in the inventory, tons of spare parts, existing instructional materials, lots of experienced armorers, etc., etc.: SACO’s Sixties broke down way too often while FN’s 240s didn’t.

And the Army moved out smartly to fully equip the force with a new machine gun that – despite being considerably heavier – was vastly more reliable. When you need it to shoot, it shoots.Passing a Sputtering Torch

Prior to its last-ditch effort in the “Upgrade Kit” trials, M60 production had long been the exclusive domain of Saco Defense, where a skilled force of dedicated craftsmen had been turning out hundreds of thousands of these guns in various configurations. But for some reason the level of quality seems to have dropped.

This is particularly puzzling given Navy Special Warfare’s apparent satisfaction with their measurably improved M60E4/ MK43s of about the same time frame.

It must be left to others to explain the reasons for the abysmal performance of the eighteen guns SACO brought to the Army’s gunfight in 1994. SAR’s numerous phone calls – with detailed messages left for a certain individual who had been identified to us as a key player on the industry side of the trials – were not returned.

Market forces being what they are, SACO was acquired by defense industry giant General Dynamics in 2000. No secret that the Sixty was by then a neglected stepchild as Big Army transitioned to the M240 and it would have slowly faded away if it weren’t for a visionary named Curtis Debord.

We contacted Steve Helzer, General Manager of US Ordnance, Inc., located in Reno, Nevada, to get the straight story on how the M60 was saved from a lingering but certain death. What follows is based on telephone conversations and email exchanges.

SAR: Who is primarily responsible for acquiring the M60 rights from SACO and what was his reason for pursuing this?

Helzer: In 2000, Curtis Debord recognized that there was a business opportunity for a small arms manufacturer in acquiring the original tooling, technical data packages, processes, and procedures necessary to make a MIL-SPEC M60. General Dynamics (GD) was just completing the purchase of SACO Defense and recognized that they had an obligation to ensure the availability of spare parts for the M60 for the next five to ten years. But GD wanted out of the 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun business so a licensing agreement between US Ordnance and Saco Defense/GD was a logical conclusion. It ensured the availability of spare parts and ensured that the M60 remained in production. Spare parts and complete weapon systems would be available, and design improvement work could continue.

SAR: We have seen plenty of evidence to convince us that US Ordnance’s M60E4 – initially fielded by Navy Special Warfare as the MK43 Mod 0 and now the Mod 1 – represent significant ‘design improvements’ over all previous versions. Will you take our readers through its mechanical upgrades?

Helzer: US Ordnance’s MK43s feature twenty-two key improvements. I’ll list them roughly from muzzle to buttstock, not necessarily in order of importance —

1. Redesigned flash suppressor. It’s shorter, more effective and not prone to breaking like the ‘duck bill’ variant used in early SEAL team guns.
2. Adjustable front sight allows for zeroing of spare and primary barrel prior to mission operation. The old design required the gunner during combat to remember to adjust the rear sight for each barrel change. A small relief cut in the new front sight base decreases the chance of losing the front sight in the field.
3. Bipod moved from barrel to receiver. This has reduced the weight of the spare barrel and keeps the receiver stable, off the ground away from debris and pointed down range during barrel changes.
4. Bipod is strengthened and simplified, one hand operated and has ambidextrous legs to ease maintenance and spares.
5. Improved forward handguard with increased heat shielding that protects the operator from barrel heat, plus a forward pistol grip for better control.
6. Mod 1 variant has a Rail Interface Handguard with removable/repositionable pistol grip. This accommodates different sized soldiers and allows mounting of the gun to most all existing platforms. Three rails (both sides and underneath) allow mounting of multiple items like lasers and aiming devices.
7. Carry handle is mounted on the barrel to facilitate hot barrel change and offset so it won’t get in the way of the sights.
8. Improved gas system is “soldier proof” reversible. The old system was one direction only and if assembled wrong the gun would fire once and not cycle.
9. Gas tube on the barrel is simplified with three fewer parts than the old standard.
10. Both the Mod 0 and Mod 1 come with an aluminum rail top cover to facilitate the mounting of optics.
11. A new spring loaded feed cam allows loading of the weapon with the bolt forward (safe position) or rearward (charged) without damaging the feed cam assembly.
12. A redesigned feed cam, feed pawl assembly, and cartridge retaining pawl for 30% improved belt pull to overcome misaligned ammo and debris.
13. Two sear notches on the operating rod help prevent run away gun in extreme operating environments.
14. The operating rod tube is now hard chrome plated for corrosion resistance and to facilitate cleaning. Its fore end is induction hardened to resist mechanical wear from the forward sling mount.
15. A new captured pin prevents accidental detachment and loss of the trigger group.
16. Improved trigger grip housing that is stronger and redesigned to prevent trigger pin from being installed backwards in unsafe position.
17. Ambidextrous safety.
18. A trigger guard that hinges down to allow trigger finger access wearing thick winter mitts or NBC protective gloves.
19. Nyloc safety nut on cocking handle retainer holds tight despite vibration and allows for multiple assembly and disassembly with no degradation.
20. The ammunition hanger is now rigidly mounted to the side of the receiver – unlike the previous version, where the hanger was mounted to the feed try. Now, when checking the chamber, the gunner doesn’t have to lift a belt of heavy ammunition and also risk dumping it out of the bandoleer.
21. Improved polymer buttstock that is lighter and stronger while retaining the hinged shoulder rest feature.
22. Overall weapon length (fitted with short barrel) is 5 inches shorter then the Standard M60 and almost 4 pounds lighter

SAR: When we interviewed Dale McClellan at STS he said there were some other improvements in the works. (Editor’s Note: SAR’s interview with McClellan, a former SEAL M60 gunner and now president of STS, is a fascinating perspective on development of the MK43 Mod 1 and slow death of the Sixty in the US Navy. It is scheduled to run in an upcoming issue)

Helzer: That’s right. Our improved short fluted barrel is currently available and is based on the ones that STS did the 850 round demos with. Still in the RDT&E (research, development, test and engineering) stages are the improved cocking handle, bolt with new metallurgy, and a modification to the feed tray. We’re always working to improve our M60 family of guns and there are a couple of other things that maybe we can talk about in a few months.

SAR: What US military/government/law enforcement entities have purchased at least several guns and/or quantity orders for spares in the last couple of years?

Helzer: We have sold to numerous Sheriff Departments to assist with their new role in Homeland Security. Primarily for Maritime Security escort duty for tankers carrying oil or LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) in states with ocean access ports. We would prefer not to mention their names as this might be somewhat sensitive. It is safe to say we have ongoing programs on both coasts and in with the gulf coast states to arm their various patrol boats with Mk43s.

The US Army Tank and Automotive Command in Rock Island, Illinois (TACOM-RI) is our largest customer. TACOM-RI purchases are primarily for Foreign Military Sales. We have also received US Government purchase orders for spare parts from TACOM-RI, Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) and Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) for use by our own soldiers. These have primarily been spare barrels and sub assemblies for complete weapons.

And, we just delivered a small quantity of complete MK43 Mod 1s to the US Navy.

SAR: What foreign countries have gotten guns in quantity over the last two years?

Helzer: Colombian Navy and Army, Czech Republic for their 601st Special Forces, Philippine Air Force, Spanish Air Force, Italian Navy, Chilean Air Force, and Thai Navy. The M60 family of weapons is still very popular around the free world.

SAR: What’s the price of the MK43 retrofit parts kit?

Helzer: Anyone with a serviceable M60 receiver can have what amounts to a brandnew MK43 for about 60 percent of the cost of a complete new gun. Or, we’ll be happy to sell them a complete MK43 Mod 1 for $11,200 (domestic suggested retail price). That’s less than commercial price for FN’s M240 and significantly less than their MK48 guns. Our MK43s are in stock and ready for delivery to US Government and law enforcement pending ATF transfer approval.

SAR: We know that US Ord used to sell semiauto M60s that were civilian legal with no special paperwork. But now, the website says resumption of sales is delayed indefinitely. Comment?

Helzer: The Global War on Terror has caused a dramatic impact on the small arms industry. As our government orders ramped up we pulled our employees from the semi-auto production line and converted that area in our shop to military and law enforcement. This was a difficult decision because of the large and loyal civilian M60 following but a necessary one to support the warfighter and our coalition partners. Sales are still delayed indefinitely.

SAR: How many semiauto US Ord Sixties are out there now?

Helzer: There are more than 150 of the M60, M60E3 and a small number (10-20) of factory M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0 and Mod 1 semi autos in civilian hands.

Live Firing the MK43

The scope of this feature is not intended to include a hands-on evaluation of the new Sixties from US Ordnance. This has been well done by others, most notably Kent Lomont, the highly respected tactical small arms guru and SAR-certified “RKI.”

In a recent telephone conversation, Lomont told us he has put more than 70,000 rounds of “every kind of ammo” through his US Ord MK43 with excellent results. In no uncertain terms he declared, “It’s a goddamn good gun! For the first time there’s a Sixty you can bet your life on.”

Lomont’s salty and straightforward endorsement tracks with what we have repeatedly heard from law enforcement and military users. To the point, the MK43 has proven itself over recent years in hard training and combat operations by Navy SEALs and other elite formations such as the “Screaming Eagles” in Iraq.

We have personally observed the situation where one US Ordnance MK43 Mod 1 was run without incident for several thousand rounds in the industry demo and participant live fire opportunity at NDIA Small Arms 2006. Then, in our day on the range with students of Navy Center for Security Forces’ Crew Served Weapons Instructor Course, no problems occurred with either of two US Ord MK43 guns that were hard-used all afternoon by a dozen Sailors.

Those who are still skeptical are invited to see for themselves some real torture tests of the MK43. A couple different 850 round continuous burst videos are linked on the Special Tactical Services’ website at www.spectacserv.com. Click VIDEOS on the navigation bar, then select MACHINE GUNS. Plenty more folks have accessed and marveled the one at Blackwater that is posted on YouTube.

MK43 Mod 1 Technical Specifications
Source: US Ordnance Product Documentation

Caliber: 7.62 x 51mm NATO
Operation: Gas piston with 2-lug turning bolt
Weight: 20.5 pounds with short barrel
Length: 37 inches with short (16.5 in.) barrel
Barrel options: Short (16.5 in.), Assault (17.5 in.) and Long (21.5 in.)
Cyclic Rate: 500 to 600 rounds per minute
Max. effective range: 1100 meters
Notes: The latest product improvement of M60E4/MK43 is quickly recognized by Rail Interface System (RIS) forearm assembly with integrated Mil-Std 1913 rail system for mounting laser and lighting systems, plus improved control with a repositionable pistol grip. Also, one-piece milled aluminum feed tray cover with optional/integral RIS for mounting virtually any scope, night vision or electrooptic system. The Conversion Kit is available for all M60 variants that is 100% backwards compatible with all pre-existing M60’s. All components and parts of the MK43 Mod 1 are built to exceed original mil-spec standards.

Find Out More
US Ordnance, Inc.: www.usord.com
Special Tactical Services, LLC:
www.spectacserv.com
Link to 850 round demonstration video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBNGguOqGIQ

“Training missions from Maritime Homeland Security and Defense to expeditionary warfare, SMTC has the ability to standardize tactics, techniques and procedures which equates to effective operations in the joint maritime environment.” Captain E. L. Alexander, Commanding Officer, USCG Special Missions Training Center

Dramatic video segments showing machine gun toting patrol boats roaring along waterways and ocean intercepts of drug smuggling “go-fast” boats are familiar to those of us who pay attention to news about military units involved in anti-terror and security activities at home and abroad.

Dedicated and hard working members of the Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps are out there every day of the year, around the clock, in all kinds of weather, all over the globe. They protect harbor facilities, escort high value assets like aircraft carriers, run waterborne patrols and raids along Iraq’s rivers, board and search commercial shipping, find and stop narcotics traffickers.

But few pause to wonder how the skilled sailors and others who perform these missions receive their specialized training. Where do coxswains go to learn to maneuver small, swift patrol craft and keep them from foundering in heavy seas? Who teaches all those gunners to hang on to free-swinging, boat mounted machine guns while bringing effective and accurate fire on a fast moving target across roller coaster waves? Where does one go to quickly learn from experts with years of real-world experience in maritime military operations?

The US Coast Guard’s Special Missions Training Center (SMTC) is a one-stop resource for a host of critical components in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Ideally located since 1998 as a major tenant activity aboard the sprawling US Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, on the Atlantic Ocean coastline of North Carolina, this little known but enormously valuable operation trains personnel and elite formations of three branches of the US Armed Forces. Moreover, its Testing and Evaluation branch conducts operational tests of new weapons and equipment – including non-lethal technologies – and its Doctrine branch standardizes GWOT tactics, techniques and procedures.

In addition to full spectrum training for the Coast Guard’s own Port Security Units, Maritime Safety and Security Teams, and Cutter Boat counter drug operators; SMTC trains Marine Corps small boat operators in Dam Security Units, as well as the Navy’s Inshore Boat Units and Mobile Security Force.

The center’s “can-do” curriculum includes everything from entry level field training to deep sea small boat operations. In between we find basic and advanced certification for coxswains, those “boat drivers” who skipper the small, fast but vulnerable tactical watercraft, as well as instruction in weapons and tactics from non-lethal devices to 40mm high explosive grenade machine guns.

Crew Served Weapons Course

It is, of course, the weapons set that is of greatest interest to SAR’s readers so we briefly joined a class in progress as a group of mostly Navy Mobile Security sailors were going through the Small Boat Crew Served Weapons Operations and Maintenance Course. This 13 day entry level program focuses on three of the most effective machine guns in the US Armed Forces; the 7.62mm M240, .50 caliber M2HB and the 40mm Mark 19. Along the way they would learn about and demonstrate mastery of a long list of the expected critical tasks; like operation, maintenance and tactical applications, as well as land and waterborne live fire by day and night.

Additionally, significant emphasis is given to other topics to minimize innocent civilian casualties as well as those among US forces inflicted by predatory lawyers and hostile news organizations. Let there be no doubt about the wisdom and necessity for thoroughly ingraining in these gunners the principles of restrained escalation of force, legal aspects in Status of Forces Agreements, and Rules of Engagement.

Our first encounter with the course in progress was a classroom session on disassembly and assembly of the .50 caliber M2HB machine gun. Instructor to student ratio was excellent as each of several tables with four to six youthful sailors had its own gun and a seasoned, knowledgeable staffer. In addition to the salty petty officers and chiefs who make up the bulk of the Weapons Division’s instructor staff, civilian contractors from L3/Titan Corp. – nearly all recently retired military with plenty of real world experience – round out the team. The training style observed was very matter-of-fact, with advice and corrections given in even tones and to the point.

The “Ma Deuce” fifties were all brand new off the General Dynamics production line in Saco, Maine, impressive evidence of the post 9/11 supply pipeline delivering guns and other gear to America’s warfighters. While new guns come with their own set of annoyances from stiff springs and tightly fitting parts, each of the men (and a couple of women sailors) managed to get their guns apart, back together, properly head spaced and timed. By the end of the day all had repeated the process several times, an essential foundation for the live fire exercises that would follow.

Landborne Weapons Proficiency

A couple of days later we rejoined the class assembled on Range K211, across the New River from mainside Lejeune, just a few miles north of the fabled Stone Bay marksmanship complex. Although a fairly typical coastal Carolina cold and damp December day, all were thankful that no rain was expected as this would by no means cancel the training.

Chief Engineman (SWCC/PJ) Michael “Sammy” Hager was unquestionably in charge as the lead instructor and range safety officer. Hager, a physically imposing and straight talking veteran of years in Special Warfare Combatant Craft, welcomed the opportunity to show off the young sailors in the class, along with his fellow instructors who he describes as “the best crew you’ll ever find.”

He explained that this first day of actual live fire is conducted on land in keeping with the prudent instructional concept of “crawl, walk, run.” It would be counter-productive at this point, he said, to add the distractions, uncertainties, discomfort, cramped quarters, and multiple dangers of small boat gunnery on the water. All that would come soon enough….

This was by no means a familiarization fun fire day. The course outline for the training mandates six diverse objectives that each student must meet for the two weapons that go beyond loading, firing, correcting stoppages, and clearing. Previous classroom instruction in traditional machine gun tactical principles were put into practice on this real terrain by gunners describing and demonstrating classes of fire like plunging, and grazing, traversing and searching.

Then, imagining the closest target hulks in the role of hostile boats, they got a simplistic taste of what was to come later in waterborne scenarios requiring free gun swinging traverse, frontal, flanking and oblique fires.

Two weapons were front and center; first the 40mm Mark 19 Mod 3, then the 7.62mm M240. The hefty 77 pound MK19 was cradled in the Mark 93 Mod 0 Mount on the distinctive Mark 16 Mod 2 Tripod and Mark 8 Stand, a combo that has long been found on most US military watercraft. Several were positioned on portable sections of heavy steel deck plate, high above the range’s staging area on a long berm with a commanding view of the impact zone.

Mark 19s are Vietnam era grenade chuckers that still do yeoman duty in all the US Armed Forces. From the well worn looks of these veteran Saco-made guns, a couple could have actually served with the Brown Water Navy way back when.

High explosive ammo was standing by in the truck but target practice loads were the first ammunition for the exercise. These blue tipped paint poppers gave students a relatively stress free introduction to real loading and firing. The “relatively” part comes from several instances of scarlet dye powder puking in the receivers from breaks in the plastic projectile ogives.

The theory among the instructors was this unsightly but essentially harmless inconvenience came from lowest-bidder ammo being shaken and cracked in the feed cycle from the heavy recoil that is characteristic of the MK19. Anyway, most everyone got plenty of experience in clearing the guns and brushing away dye powder.

As in the classroom, patient but stern instructors went through a basic safety and operation briefing with each student at his turn. Recognizing the stress that many must feel at their first time behind the big guns, the intent is obviously to put them more at ease as well as to quickly reinforce loading, firing, misfire procedures, and clearing drills practiced earlier in dry-fire exercises.

All this is particularly appreciated – and arguably necessary – with the MK19 as it has a two stage charging sequence that must be strictly attended to. Careless gunners who only charge it once (pull back the charging handles) will “no fire.” Worse, the doubly careless gunner who forgets he has already charged it twice will inadvertently fire the weapon while attempting a third cycle. Oops, sorry ‘bout that!

Phase two was fired with real M430 HEDP (high explosive dual purpose), a particularly effective combination warhead that will go through two inches of armor plate and also spray fragments in a five meter kill zone. The pucker factor is that it is known for occasionally detonating in the gun or – much worse – just a few meters from the muzzle. As such, Kevlar helmets and body armor plus thick ballistic goggles are always worn by all participants in live fire regardless of the type of ammunition.

Landlubber shooters have much to learn about small boat gunnery techniques. Instructors teach the students to firmly grasp the Mark 19’s spade grips and push the chest right into their fists. This, they explained, helps the gunner keep control of a free swinging weapon when the boat is underway in rough water.

The downside is this requires one hell of a lot of upper body strength and bicep endurance to do it for any period of time while actually underway. Plenty of pushups and pull-ups are in order as well as strengthening of the upper leg muscles that must constantly flex to cushion the gunner on a bouncing deck. There is no room for marginal physical fitness at these gun stations.

Reinforcement Training

With more shooters on site than guns, those waiting their turn were not idle. Instructors had them rotating through hands-on stations at wooden tables in front of the covered bleachers where each would once again go through stripping and assembly, loading, misfire procedures, and clearing. Sure, some grumbled that this was boring and repetitious, but that’s exactly what’s needed. Savvy instructors know that muscle memory and instinctive action are essential requirements for effective action under the stress of actual combat.

240 Time

After all students had the opportunity to live fire both practice and HE loads in the Mark 19, it was time to break out the 7.62mm M240s. Until recently, the Navy and Coast Guard have used veteran M60 machine guns in land, sea and air roles. But these Vietnam-era warhorses have seen better days and few tears are shed while they are being replaced as quickly as new shipments of M240 guns arrive, fresh off the production lines at FNMI in Columbia, South Carolina. This Belgian designed weapon has a well deserved reputation for being tough and reliable under the worst operational abuse and environmental extremes like salt spray, arctic cold and sandstorms.

The 24 pound M240N guns were secured atop the Mark 16 stand assembly in standard Mark 97 Mod 0 mounts, a single gun cradle with attached ammo cage for the usual 200 round steel boxes. A bigger one with 600 round capacity is also available as well as a Mark 99 Mod 0 twin gun mount. Stops on the Mark 16 Mod 8 Stand’s train (traversing) collar can be variously positioned to limit left-right swing as required for safety and a swing-up train lock adapter (travel lock) immobilizes everything when action is not imminent.

Countering the temptation to use the M240’s iron sights, gunners were encouraged to observe the tracer stream and impact signature to quickly bring the beaten zone onto designated targets. This would be a necessity when the training shifted to boats underway. Controlled bursts up to ten rounds conserved ammo while putting sufficient amounts of lead into the target for effective neutralization.

No Spin Zone

Our time on K211 was further enhanced by the opportunity to talk at length with Chief Hager, who spoke candidly on a number of subjects relevant to maritime gunnery that readers are invited to take note of:

• “On their first day in class, students see real-world video of a fast and furious attack by well trained terrorists in heavily armed small boats.” This dramatic and sobering eye-opener drives home the seriousness of the protective mission that gunners have.
• Numerous combat after-action reviews have influenced the course content. One result is that “more emphasis is now being placed on security zones and interlocking fields of fire.”
• The M240 is very reliable under most conditions but proper lubrication varies with environmental conditions. “A 50/50 mixture of CLP and diesel fuel has been giving good results” in SW Asia.
• Ammunition availability for gunnery training needs to increase – particularly in .50 caliber. Hager acknowledges that electronic simulators like FATS (Fire Arms Training Systems) can help take up the slack, but he emphasized that “there is no substitute for actually shooting live rounds.”

(SMTC’s leadership advises that they have sufficient funding for training ammunition but the recent shortfall in available rounds is due to significantly increased demand by operational units in forward deployed areas. Barring unforeseen circumstances, this strain on the output of DoD’s relatively few production sources is likely to ease in the near future. Meanwhile, a customized FATS system is nearing completion that will allow sophisticated maritime scenario training with all three crew served weapons – Editor)

We also talked a bit with one of Hager’s students, MA3 (Master At Arms Third Class) Tony Pittaluga, a 26 year old native of Cape May, New Jersey with two years in the Navy. Currently assigned as a coxswain with Navy Mobile Security Detachment 22 in Portsmouth, Virginia, he and his unit are recent returnees from a deployment to Iraq securing vital oil terminals against terrorist attack. Pittaluga makes some interesting points to ponder:

• “Smooth is fast – fast is smooth.” Don’t try to rush through mechanical tasks like loading, clearing jams or assembly/reassembly. Practice repeatedly and speed will come naturally.
• Physical stress adds a lot of realism to gunnery training that is needed to prepare for effectiveness under fire. “Run and do exercises before handling the guns so your heart rate is up, hands trembling and sweaty.”
• Training ammunition shortages affect his home unit and it is a disappointment that the amount of ammo this class at SMTC will get is a lot less than what shipmates reported firing in earlier classes.

Night Fire and More

The students and staffers were in for another long day with scheduled firing after sundown under parachute flare illumination popped from M203 grenade launchers. A special treat was to be the chance to spend some quality time with a starlight scope. Night vision devices are hard to come by due to urgent operational requirements so the instructors were pleased to be able to borrow a brand new Litton AN/PVS-5 Crew Served Weapons Night Vision Sight for this group of students.

In a few days, the class would move out by small boat onto designated waterway ranges nearby for gunnery training while underway. Again, under the principle of “crawl, walk, run,” this would carefully progress from shooting off a static boat, to dry runs at slow speeds, then live fire runs at 5 knots and 10. Safety precautions are strictly enforced and the whole exercise is made exponentially difficult by environmental factors like sea condition, speed and direction of boat, target and wind, as well as the usual winter weather miseries of freezing rain and fog.

SMTC Expansion

A multi-million dollar construction program is well underway at the center’s Courthouse Bay location with six components nearing completion. This new Joint Maritime Complex includes a headquarters, academic instruction facility, armory, maintenance building, warehouse, and training pool. Also, a ship-on-shore shoot house, that will facilitate live fire scenarios unique to those required in boarding and securing oceangoing vessels, is pending congressional approval and funding.

This physical expansion will also support a growing list of missions arising from GWOT operations such as more boat and weapons training.

Coast Guard on the Web

The official website for SMTC is www.uscg.mil/smtc. Go to the US Coast Guard’s home page at www.uscg.mil to access information on opportunities, benefits and qualifications for enlistment. Good men and women are needed for Port Security Units, Maritime Safety and Security Teams, Cutter Boats, Helicopter Interdiction, and much more.