“The supply of weapons and ammunition is most difficult, particularly at the time the unit is established, but this problem can always be solved eventually. Guerilla bands that originate in the people are furnished with revolvers, pistols, bird guns, spears, big swords, and land mines and mortars of local manufacture. Other elementary weapons are added and as many new type rifles as are available are distributed. After a period of resistance, it is possible to increase the supply of equipment by capturing it from the enemy.– Mao Tse-Tung, Yu Chi Chan (Guerilla Warfare)

I was reading Mao’s old handbook on guerilla warfare, written in 1937 and translated by Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith (who also performed the best translation I have seen on Master Sun Tzu’s The Art of War), and was struck by the agelessness of the above passage. It was interesting to note how in other passages, Mao quotes such diverse Western luminaries as Von Clausewitz and Lenin in his book. A significant part of the book is devoted to the tedious details of operating and supplying a hidden army, and that has much in common with the minutiae of the supply chain in modern armies that are far from home. It also has much in common with the guerilla tactics that our soldiers are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Uncle Ho followed The Chairman’s recipes in Vietnam, and perhaps every rebel group has followed it as well. Combining these teachings with the violent capabilities of modern terrorist doctrine makes for a potent threat. Identifying the resources of the insurgents goes beyond simply finding their weapons caches; without food or other supplies, the terrorists and insurgents lose effectiveness.

It is to the great benefit of the modern soldier to have a thorough understanding of the weapons and tactics used by his enemy, and the archives of SAR are certainly a good place to start that education.

Q-I am a subscriber to Small Arms Review and recently received an interesting request from a friend in the UK for some information about the replacement of .50 BMG barrels during combat operations in WWII. My friend is the curator of a small museum at an RAF station, an enthusiastic shooter (when he can be, under current UK law), and an avid collector of militaria. When I read his question I thought you might be able to provide some references or anecdotal information to send to him.

Now for his technical question. “Last week I visited what was the MOD Pattern Room, which you will remember as a truly fantastic collection of firearms. I was shown two sectioned barrels of Browning 0.5″ M3 machine guns which had been seriously eroded and damaged by prolonged sustained automatic fire. I was informed that the root problem was such that barrels had to be changed after 180 rounds continuous automatic fire on the ground gun and after 150 rounds on the aircraft version.” What my friend wishes to know is: How did the USAAF cope with this problem in WW II when each B17 carried 10 or more of these guns? Did they change all barrels automatically after each sortie? Or, did the armorers have a quick check method to ensure that a barrel was sound?”

A- The short answer is that armorers could tell what needed to be changed out by the ammunition expended on return or with periodic checks of keyholing. The rule of thumb was that if more than 4% of the rounds keyholed at short range, the barrel was shot out. The bases you refer to in the UK had firing pits off the sides of the runways where the armorers could have the gunners test their weapons into large dirt piles. Some of these are still in use today in the UK as firing ranges.

There is more to the story though. All of the guns in the U.S. Army Air Force aircraft early on during the war were the M2 AC variant (AC stands for Air Craft), which was a relatively high speed gun with a rate of fire around 850 rpm. The later guns in 1945 were of the M3 AC-Basic configuration, which had a much higher rate of fire at 1,150 to 1,200 rpm. One of the prime differences from M2 to M3 was in the lining of the barrel. Both guns had lighter barrels than the venerable M2HB whose rate of fire was in the 500 rpm range. As you have noted in your question, there is a difference in the recommended barrel change frequency related to use.

First, let’s look at the mid-war (1943) manual recommendations:

TM 9-225 Browning Machine Gun, Cal. .50, M2, Aircraft, Basic Section 9-d Permissible bursts of automatic fire.

Aircraft machine guns are air-cooled. As guns are mounted at present, there is little difference in the rate of cooling whether the gun is fired on the ground or in the air. Because of the absence of an efficient cooling medium, the temperature of the barrel of a caliber .50 aircraft machine gun rises rapidly during firing. The longer the burst, the higher the temperature attained. The progressive heating of the barrel gives rise to several effects: (Lists four different ones)…

(2) For firing during training, a maximum burst of 75 rounds may be fired from a cool gun. Approximately 1 minute after firing a 75-round burst, firing may be resumed and a 20-round burst may be fired and repeated each minute thereafter.

(3) Combat firing is unrestricted, but bursts of longer duration than 75-rounds (5 second bursts) decrease accuracy and may lead to a stoppage due to overheating. Furthermore, the barrel will probably have to be scrapped, since a brand new barrel can be ruined by a prolonged burst of one half minute duration. (The manual continues with description of problems in synchronized guns and propellers.)

From this description in the manual, it is clear that the early barrels were considered trashed at about 450 rounds continuous fire. The armorers could tell how much firing was done by the rounds expended and asking the gunners what the burst ratio was – was it all at once in a furious fight, or more stretched out over several engagements. Ground testing was also done to function check the guns, and the armorer could tell about keyholing at this point.

Obviously, the barrels couldn’t be changed during the flight, and as noted in section 3, combat firing was unrestricted. There was no Pollyanna wishful thinking that anyone in combat would do other than put the hammer down in a fight. Barrels were changed out as needed, indicated by the type of fire they went through. Spare barrel supply was a big issue on the M2 AC guns.

The M3 AC-Basic .50 caliber machine gun had a much higher rate of fire, but the barrels were stellite lined and had a much longer life. Chromium plating was also introduced. The incidence of barrel destruction due to prolonged bursts went down, but armorers still had to watch carefully for keyholing and a degradation of accuracy. There was no point in sending out a plane where the gunners couldn’t hit their targets.

Of perhaps more interest to civilian shooters is the danger from long bursts. I have included a picture of a barrel that came from a civilian shoot where the shooter stood on the trigger so long that the barrel heated up to the point of reaching an elastic state. On a scale of good and bad, this is a “Bad” thing. As the metal reaches super high temperatures, the pressure of the expanding gases behind the projectile make the barrel appear to “pulse” white hot with each projectile moving down the bore. While this may make for the colorful combat stories frequently told of Ma Deuce in the fighting against the attacking Chinese human waves during the Korean War, it is a sign of the system reaching critical failure. This particular barrel failed at a shoot, and the projectile split the barrel and exited the side of the barrel jacket. Fortunately, no one was injured and the owner of the gun gave me the barrel to keep at LMO’s classroom as an example of what can go wrong. I am hoping this picture is a wake up call for recreational shooters as to what the real problems are with long bursts out of these air-cooled machine guns. Slow down a bit, and be safer, or buy a water-cooled machine gun for your prolonged bursts. You want one anyway, so here’s your excuse to get one. “Honey, I have to buy a 1917A1 because Raffica says that it isn’t safe or smart to shoot long bursts out of my air-cooled guns anymore. It’s about more safety for the children.” That should work.

Q-Do you have a cut off number for pre ban Mini-14 rifles? I want to make a side folder out of my Mini-14.

A- This isn’t really a relevant concern anymore. The so-called Clinton Assault Weapons Ban “sunsetted” in 2004 and went away after ten uneventful and inconsequential years. Like most feel-good legislation, it accomplished nothing other than annoying legitimate firearms owners and giving the regulatory agencies more incomprehensible, technical law to have to deal with. For historical purposes, here are the Ruger manufacturing dates, but today you can take any Mini-14 and put any stock on it as long as you keep it within Title I regulations with a barrel over 16 inches and an overall length over 26 inches. Remember that you may have state or local laws to contend with as well. Anything under that and you have to file a Form 1 to make a Short Barreled Rifle before you make it. This shouldn’t have any effect on your desire to put a folder on a standard Mini-14. This list also doesn’t address which model of Mini-14 was made, rifle, folder, or GB. I have also never been able to determine if there is a misprint in this list as the 1993 serial number range is the same on the Mini-14 and the Ranch Rifle, but this is the best info we have ever had on these dates.

Ruger Manufacture Dates

Q-I have an original low serial number AR-15 that is full auto with ArmaLite markings and I want to make sure I have the right magazine for it for my display. Which one would be correct?

A- This is a tough one, because you didn’t give me the serial number range on the rifle or tell me if it said “Colt” on it as well. Since it is marked ArmaLite AR-15 and is an original gun, then it has to be earlier than the Model 602. Most of the later guns would be correct with any aluminum bodied 20 or 30-round magazine, or the steel bodied 20-rounders. I suspect from your comment that it is a “low serial number” that you have one of the very early guns. This would be worth taking a look at the first two magazines that were made. The Colt Model 601, referred to as an “01”, was marked both Colt and ArmaLite. After the Model 601, the magazine wells only had “Colt” on them and up until the Model 614, they had “AR-15” as a model designation with other markings to indicate “O1” or “614” etc. The first guns were only marked with “ArmaLite”. If, in fact, you have a very early gun that is only marked Armalite, you have a truly special gun. See me after class, we need to talk.

Q-I am in Iraq and have found an AK magazine that looks different. It has a grey color paint and a large rib on the back, and it won’t fit into any of the AKs we have found. It is definitely 7.62×39 caliber. Is this for some odd Iraqi weapon?

A- You didn’t state where you were serving, so I can’t give you any feedback on other groups in your area, but from your description this is for the Czech VZ58 select fire rifle. There are three ways this magazine could have gotten to Iraq and into your hands. There is a contingent of soldiers from the Czech Republic on duty with the Multi National Force, and they have a hospital operation in Basra among other presence. Czech soldiers may be armed with the VZ58, as well as other more modern weapons like their homegrown AK74 variant. The Iraq government had procured some VZ58s at one time, not a primary weapon, but in testing. One of these that had been pimped up with a chrome finish was captured in the Battle of Fallujah. Astute reader, Iraq War vet and long time Rafficarian Andrew Clyde wrote in to us, and the picture of that little chromed out gem appeared in Raffica SAR Volume 8 Number 11. To further complicate the tracking on this magazine, there are a lot of VZ58s floating around on the world market, very inexpensively. We never were able to final track where that chromed example found in Fallujah came from, but our conjecture is that it was a palace guard model. So the exact source of your oddball magazine is ambiguous at best, but it does belong in-country.

I once had a set of VZ58s that were bring-backs from the Vietnam War purportedly taken from an NVA officer, and these were Amnesty registered so they were fully transferable. VZ58s have shown up in numerous places, and will continue to do so. SAR has covered these rifles in the past, as well as the American made semi-automatic VZ2000 from Ohio Ordnance Works, and the Czech offered VZ58S.

Q-I have been told the correct tripod for my M60 is the M122 and that it looks exactly like the tripod for the 1919A4. Is there a difference?

A- The one for the 1919 is marked M2, and the one for the M60 is marked M122. They are essentially the same and are interchangeable, but for technical and historical accuracy, your M60 should be mounted on an M122 marked tripod. There were many of the old 1919A4 tripods designated the “M2” that were remarked as “M122” and no further work was done to them. The primary differences in the shooting platforms are in the pintle and Traverse & Elevation mechanisms (T&E). Some of the later M122s had a smoother transition from the legs to the feet, appearing to be made from one piece and not welded. The best ID is from the photos accompanying this answer.

Send questions to:
Raffica
sareview@aol.com
Or mail to Small Arms Review Attn Raffica
631 N. Stephanie St #562
Henderson, NV 89014

There are few gun designers who can claim to have been as successful as John Browning. His weapons have stood the test of time and served the US Forces in one form or another since World War I. The .50 M2 Browning is still in front line service and looks like it will remain so for a number of years to come.

A drawback with the belt-fed Browning machine gun designs is that they were heavy. With the .50 being normally moved on board a vehicle, the weight problem isn’t a serious one. For the footsoldier who has to carry everything on his back, the weight of a Browning .30 caliber was very noticeable.

When the US entered World War II, it was armed with the Browning M1917A1 watercooled .30 and the M1919A4 aircooled version of basically the same weapon. The tripod-mounted M1919A4 could be handled and operated by one man without its tripod, but only just. Unmounted, the M1919A4 could be hip-fired during an assault. But that was an inaccurate and clumsy method of employing the weapon. And even a strong man couldn’t hold the gun up, aim, and fire an M1919A4 very effectively.

The German Army had fielded a new concept in machine guns for World War II, the general purpose gun. The MG 34 and later MG 42 were both reasonably lightweight guns that could be fired accurately from their built-in bipods by one man. The quick-change barrel system, especially the design used on the MG 42, allowed the weapon to have a good sustained fire capability from a tripod mount.

The real advantage of the general purpose machine gun concept was that it added greatly to the overall volume of fire that could be put out by a squad-sized unit. The US Army took note of this fact and closely examined captured specimens of the MG 42. The tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in February 1943 impressed the US ordnance personnel attending them. The orders went out to produce two MG 42, chambered for the US .30 caliber service round.

The Saginaw Steering Gear Division of General Motors was contracted to produce two .30 caliber versions of the MG 42, the weapons to be designated the T24. In one of the truly amazing errors in US weapons design, the dimensional changes to convert the MG 42 to the T24 were mis-calculated. Several parts of the T24 were too short to operate with 30-06 ammunition. Even the receiver was too short by 1/2 inch.

The 10,000 round endurance tests of the T24 were discontinued after only 1,483 round had been fired – with 50 malfunctions. A redesign of the T24 would have been too costly in terms of time and material in a wartime environment. The project was canceled and the two existing specimens relegated to a museum.

The only “light” belt-fed machine gun issued to US forces during World War II was a modified Browning M1919A4. The addition of a buttstock, carrying handle, bipod, flashhider, and internal modifications of the Browning .30 resulted in the M1919A6 version. At over 32 pounds weight empty, the M1919A6 could be put into action by one man, but was light only in comparison to a tripod-mounted weapon. The M1919A6 was tactically more flexible with its attached bipod, but it still was not in the class of a general-purpose weapon.

The US military renewed its interest in a new light, general purpose machine gun after WWII had ended. Another German WWII design intrigued the US ordnance community enough to begin some experiments with it. The Krieghoff FG 42 had been developed for German paratroop forces and was a combination of innovative ideas of its own, and some adoptions of interesting ideas of earlier weapons.

Designed as a lightweight machine rifle, the FG 42 was primarily made of metal stampings and welding to ease production. Magazine fed from the left side by a horizontal 20-round magazine, the FG 42 was not capable of truly sustained fire.

The bolt and operating rod of the FG 42 was very similar to that used in the much earlier Lewis gun. The German designers had modified the system so that the FG 42 fired on closed bolt for accuracy in semiautomatic fire, but switched over to firing from an open bolt when set on full automatic. The open bolt system allowed the weapon to cool more efficiently during full-auto fire.

The late-model FG 42, called the FG 42 type II, weighed in at only 11.44 pounds empty. The addition of an effective muzzle break and the in-line design of the stock helped minimize muzzle climb, but the weapon’s light weight worked against it in full auto fire. Accuracy, when fired in semiautomatic, was considered excellent, and the weapon was quick and easy to handle and lay on target.

A late model FG 42 was taken directly by the US Ordnance Corps to be refined into a belt-fed weapon. Bridge Tool and Die Works of Philadelphia was given the contract to produce the new weapon, designated the T44. A standard late model FG 42 was modified to accept the belt feed mechanism from the MG 42 on the left side of the weapon.

The orientation of the feed mechanism of the T44 allowed for minor changes in the basic design of the FG 42, but gave the weapon unique loading characteristics. The non-disintegrating German link belt would feed in from the lower left side of the T44, directly above the pistol grip. The empty link belt came out of the top of the weapon, falling down on the right side. Being that the T44 remained chambered for the German 7.92x57mm round, eliminating the problems that plagued the T24 project, the weapon was considered only a test bed to try out the feasibility of the design.

By December, 1946, the mechanical conversion of the basic FG 42 into the T44 prototype had been completed. Test firings proved much of what the German paratroops had found during the war, that the overall design was too light for sustained full automatic fire. The relatively light barrel of the FG 42 would overheat quickly, especially with the larger ammunition capacity given with the belt feed of the T44 conversion. In addition, the light weight of the weapon caused excessive spread of the rounds in a fired burst. But mechanically, the design had merit and a new contract was issued for further development.

The T44 itself never went beyond the prototype stage. But the basic bolt and operating rod mechanism of the FG 42 and the belt feed system of the MG 42 were incorporated into a new design.

Initiated in April 1947, the new weapon was designated the T52. Using much the same configuration as the original FG 42, the T52 had the feed mechanism placed on top of the receiver in the usual position, feeding from the left side of the weapon. In addition, the T52 had the wooden forearm and buttstock, bipod, muzzle brake, and trigger group of the FG 42. The barrel could not be removed from the weapon and the bolt locked into lugs in the receiver.

Later models of the T52, the T52E1 and E2, incorporated additional changes indicated by testing. The locking lugs of the bolt now engaged recesses on a barrel extension, allowing a quick-change barrel to be used to keep the weapon from overheating. The fixed headspace on the later designs eliminated the time needed to adjust headspace when a barrel was changed, as on the earlier Browning designs. Both light and heavy barrels were tried out, weighing 4.5 and 7 pounds each respectively.

The gas system was changed to that of the gas-expansion-cutoff design. In the gas-expansion-cutoff system, the propellant gas is ported from the barrel directly into the gas piston sitting in the gas cylinder. The gas piston has a solid end, bearing on the operating rod, and a hollow body with the other end open. Expending gas moves through ports into the body of the gas piston, driving it back against the operating rod. When the piston has moved a short distance, the gas supply is cut off when the ports on the piston move away from the single gas port between the barrel and the gas cylinder. Excess gas pressure is then bled away though the barrel and a small bleed hole in the front of the gas cylinder.

This complicated system gives a constant push of sufficient force to operate the action while preventing excess pressure from putting wear on the moving parts. Theoretically, the piston will allow enough gas to operate the action, more when the action is dirty or sluggish. This gas cutoff system gives a smooth, even operating force on the action rather than the single sharp jolt of a standard gas piston.

The Army Equipment Development Guide dated 29 December, 1950 stated that a new lightweight general purpose machine gun should be developed to replace all of the .30 caliber weapons (the M1917A1, M1919A4, and M1919A6) then in service. The new weapon was to have an effective range of 2,000 yards, a maximum weight of 18 pounds, a quick change barrel with a flash hider, use a disintegrating link belt, and have a cyclic rate of 600 rounds per minute. In April 1951, a second series of weapons were begun, the T161 family, to meet the new requirements and accelerate the overall program to develop a new machine gun.

The T161 design was to be chambered for the standard .30 caliber M2 round, in case the developing T65 Light Rifle round did not meet requirements. The T52 series had been chambered for the different types of T65 round as it was being developed. The new T161 weapon was modeled after the T52 series but developed with improved mass production techniques incorporated into it. In addition, the T161 series had the actuator lug for the belt feed mechanism on the bolt rather than on the rear of the operating rod as used in the T52 series. This change in the method of operating the feed system was one of the major differences between the T52 and T161 series.

The T161E1 was the first of the new series to see firing tests, now designed to accept the T65 lightweight rifle round. By March 1953, the T161E1 was ready for firing and underwent testing against the T52E3.

In early 1953, the best features of the T52 series had been incorporated into the T52E3. The lightweight barrel had been abandoned due to the heavy barrel giving greater stability for automatic fire and having to be changed less often for sustained fire. The wooden furniture of the earlier designs had been changed to stamped metal for the buttstock and forearm. Overall, the T52E3 weighed 23.58 pounds empty, had a 22-inch barrel, and an overall length of 43.5 inches. This was a savings of over eight pounds from the M1919A6 in a weapon over 9 inches shorter.

Drawbacks found in testing the T52E3 were that the weapon had a greater number of parts than earlier designs, was not a durable, and didn’t function as reliably. The T52E4 model corrected some of the deficiencies found in the earlier weapon, with different parts used to ease its manufacture. In May 1954, a contract was issued to build the T52E5, which was to incorporate all of the best features of the earlier designs.

By August 1954, the T65 ammunition family had been officially adopted as the new NATO standard round. Both the T52 and T161 series now were chambered for the new ammunition. To feed the round into the belt fed weapons, a new disintegrating link had been designed that allowed the round to be pushed forward, stripping it out of the link. As the ammunition left the belt, the individual stamped metal links separated and fell away from the feed mechanism.

The links used in the 1950s tests, the T55 link, was heavier and less flexible than desired for use. The T89 disintegrating belt link was lighter in construction, held the round firmly with a detent tab locating on the extractor groove, and made a more flexible belt. The T89 link later became the standard issue M13 belt link.

Tests on the T161E1 indicated that it needed additional changes to get the design ready for the more rugged Army user tests. The barrel assembly was redesigned, eliminating an aluminum component that deformed from the heat of firing. The feed plate was modified for smoother loading of the ammunition belt. A carrying handle was added to the weapon and the rear sight changed to one that was adjustable for range (elevation) only. The modified weapon was designated the T161E2 with 20 specimens ready for testing by the Army Field Forces (AFF) Board No. 3 in July 1953.

The AFF Board decided that the T161E2 was unsuitable for issue, citing failures to fire and stoppages due to the gas system and other faults. The 3-pound lightweight barrel was also abandoned at this point. The front sight on the both the heavy and light barrels were considered too weak for field use, having bent during testing. In spite of the drawbacks, the AFF Board stated the design showed sufficient promise to warrant further considerations.

Additional modifications to meet the AFF Boards recommendations were made on the 20 T161E2 test guns, resulting in the T161E3 design. The feed mechanism was modified to operate with the new T89 links. Additional changes were made in the firing pin. buffer assembly, and operating rod and some other minor parts. Besides the 20 modified T161E2 weapons, an additional 100 T161E3s were produced for testing.

Extensive testing of the T161E3 included temperate and arctic environments, were the T161E3 was well liked by the soldiers operating it. New tripod mounts for the T161E3 did not do as well in testing and modifications were recommended. Testing also demonstrated that the T161E3 did not have the durability of the earlier Browning designs, but did meet many of its design parameters.

The testing board reported its results on 31 July 1956. The T161E3 was found to be superior to the M1917A1, M1919A4 and M1919A6 in simplicity, portability, reliability under adverse conditions, barrel life, and other factors. The T161E3 was found to be very easy to use in hip and shoulder firing, a point stated by the majority of the gunners in the tests. The operators also preferred the new weapons because they were lighter, shorter, and easier to disassemble and assemble for cleaning.

In August 1956, the CONARC (Continental Army Command) Board No. 3 (now the US Army Infantry Board) overlooking the T161E3 tests recommended the T161E3 for adoption. Minor deficiencies in the weapon and mount would be eliminated during production. The T161E3 gun was designated the M60 machine gun and the T89 belt link designated the M13 metallic belt cartridge link, both for standard issue, on 30 January 1957. At that time, the M1917A1, M1919A4, and M1919A6 Browning machine guns were designated as limited standard. (Dan’s note: There are some registered transferable T161s in private hands, and these should be on the C&R list if they are not already.)

When the US Marines first landed in Vietnam on 8 March, 1965, their unit machine guns were still a mix of Brownings and M60s. The Browning guns remained either on vehicles, or tripod mounted along a base’s perimeter. The M60s were the machine guns of choice for patrols. Readily handled by one man, the M60 was assigned a crew of two, the gunner and assistant. These two men carried the weapon, equipment, and ammunition to keep the M60 in operation.

The M60 could be fired from the prone position, supported from its attached bipod. Or a gunner could stand and fire the weapon from the hip, under the arm, or even from the shoulder like a large rifle. This tactical flexibility of the M60 made it very popular among the men who carried it, and those it helped support.

As with any belt-fed weapon in a small military unit, ammunition was never in great enough supply – at least not according to the men in combat. A 100-round belt for the M60 came packaged in a cardboard box, the box held in a cloth bandoleer. The bandoleer could be inserted into the attached magazine pouches of early M60s, or hung from the belt feed trays of the later models (post 1966). The attached cloth strap on the bandoleer also allowed it to be slung from the shoulder for carrying.

Most soldiers found it convenient to just clip the loose ends of a 100 round M60 belt together and make the belt a closed loop. The loop of ammunition could be slung over the shoulders and across the back and chest for easy carrying. This technique evenly distributed the weight of extra ammunition across the shoulders. But it also exposed the ammunition belts to all the dirt, mud, and crap of a Southeast Asian jungle.

But when kept reasonably clean and lubricated, the M60 worked, and it worked very well. The machine gun could be carried through the jungle on a patrol ready for action. The heavy 7.62mm slugs from an M60 could chop down trees and rip an enemy formation to shreds.

Set up on a tripod with a well-trained crew and spare barrels, the M60 could put out a sustained stream of fire. Changing barrels every ten minutes, an M60 could put out 100 rounds per minute for extended lengths of time. They defended outposts, river boats, fire bases, and squads with equal efficiency.

Force multiplier is a term used in the US military for, among other things, new weapons used to increase a combat unit’s effectiveness against the enemy while not increasing the size of the unit. This can mean weapons that increase the volume of fire that can be effectively put out by a limited number of men.

The M60 quickly became the major force multiplier for small units in Vietnam. Whether straightforward infantry outfits, Marine units, special units, boats, aircraft, or vehicles, the M60 could be found putting out its fire

“Humping the pig” was a derogatory term for carrying the M60. The Pig was heavy and had a voracious appetite for equally heavy ammunition. There was nothing practical that could be done about the weight of ammunition for the M60. But for special units, there was a lot that could be done to lighten the weapon. For these forces, the LRRPS, SEALs, Force Recon, and Special Forces among others, weight carried on patrols was measured in pounds and ounces. Anything that could be lightened, was.

The first thing to go to lighten the M60 was the bipod. By just unscrewing the flash hider, the bipod could be dismounted from the barrel and 2.5 pounds removed. On some guns, the barrel was cut back to the gas piston and rethreaded to take the flash hider. The front sight would be missing from such a shortened barrel, so the rear sight could be removed. Without sights, the gun was pointed instinctively rather than aimed. Buttstocks were removed and the receiver cap on an M60C installed in its place. Later in the war, special rubber boots were made that replaced the buttstock assembly for special units such as the SEALs.

The “chopped” or cut-down M60 was a bullet hose – and a very effective one. During an ambush at close ranges of 30 meters or less, the firepower of such a weapon was devastating. And it was easy to carry, especially so for a big, fit, man. One SEAL, a group known to be fit, carried his M60 along with up to 1,200 round of ammunition, or more, depending on the mission. The modified M60 was no longer a crew-served weapon, more of a very large individual one.

The M60 did have several drawbacks in its design. The stamped metal receiver could be damaged more easily than the Browning machine metal receivers. Looseness that could develop between the sheet metal receiver and the trunnion block was corrected with a modification that had additional welding reinforce the joint.

When the M60 was stripped for cleaning, the gas piston could be installed backwards. This error usually wasn’t discovered until someone tried to fire the weapon and only one round went off. The feed cover mechanism could be damaged if it was closed on a bolt that was in the forward (fired) position. And other small parts could be mis-assembled that would result in an eventual weapons malfunction.

But these problems could be reduced through training. A primary flaw that was never addressed was that the weapon wore out bolt assemblies fairly quickly. This wear problem was directly attributed to the fixed headspace, quick-change barrel system used on the weapon. Maintenance manuals required that burrs building up on the bolt surfaces from this excessive wear be stoned down and smoothed by unit armorers. This technique was little more than a temporary fix and actually increased the rate of wear for the bolt. Experienced gunners had spare bolts available to replace those that started to show burrs building up.

The extra weight of the bipod and gas system on the spare barrel of an M60 could have been reduced if these parts had been mounted on the receiver instead. A handle on the barrel would have made changing a hot barrel much easier, and not one that required a heavy asbestos mitt to be carried by the assistant gunner.

But these problems did not keep the M60 from becoming the most widely used machine gun by US forces during the Vietnam War. The weapon and its variants remained in US service into the 1990s, exceeding the US service life of the Browning M1919A4.

Field modifications to the M60 were seen throughout Vietnam. Empty c-ration cans were attached to M60s that fed from extra-long belts. This very simple modification helped straighten out the belt before it fed into the weapon. Electrically triggered M60C models were seen on helicopter gunships – two guns mounted outboard of the rocket pods on each side of a Huey gunship. The later M60D had spade grips instead of a buttstock for easier use from a fixed mount – such as a helicopter door gun.

Cursed by some, loved by some, the M60 machine gun became a symbol of the US Serviceman in Vietnam.

In Memoriam

John Ross Weaver, Jr.
June 29, 1958 – October 23,1999

Just as this article was going to press, John Weaver was involved in a traffic accident which led to his untimely death. John is survived by his wife Debbie and sons Daniel, 9, and John, 13. Business associates will continue to operate JRW Sports to take care of pending transfers, repairs, and product orders. Contact the shop if you have any questions. Cards and donations should be sent to the family c/o JRW Sports, 1401 South Ridgewood #4, Edgewater, FL 32132

John Weaver is one of a handful of Class II manufacturers who can do it all. While many manufacturers concentrate their efforts in one or two areas, John is able to provide goods and services to the Class III world in almost every facet imaginable. JRW Sports, based in Edgewater, Florida, manufactures silencers, machineguns, full auto conversions, Glock stocks, M60 parts, H&K modifications, caliber conversions, magazine upgrades, firearm refinishing, custom knives, and gunsmithing.

John bought his first two machineguns in 1988, which included an M16 and an HK auto sear. The following year, he obtained his first Federal Firearms License, and in 1991 started paying his Special Occupational Tax as a manufacturer. The first items he manufactured were AOW shotguns, post sample machineguns, and then suppressors. John had limited experience with suppressors until he obtained some for customers, as well as for himself, through trades. Other trades netted Sten tubes and an M60, which gave John a chance to work on his welding skills. In the beginning, John’s Class II manufacturing was done on a part time basis, but as customer requests kept building, the business quickly turned full time in 1995.

Different suppressor details and features were studied and modified by John in his early efforts, until he arrived at a totally unique and efficient baffle design. He now has a full line of effective silencers from .22 to .50 caliber. In 1992, the semi auto M60 became a serious project, as well as HK modifications. HK work includes installing barrels, flapper magazine release levers, cutting down full size rifles to the shorter 51’s and 53’s, refinishing and building the integrally suppressed SD’s. In 1995, John sold the bulk of his transferable machineguns and put the money into manufacturing equipment. He started manufacturing his own M60 components because of the limited availability of good parts in the marketplace. A year later, he started manufacturing folding Glock stocks, and designed a custom knife. Until 1998, much of the machining work was subcontracted out to others. John then obtained Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) equipment, including a lathe and mill, and now manufactures all of his own parts, with the help of three additional machinists. CNC manufactured parts include the TEK 10/22 full auto parts, Colt magazine followers, magazine well blocks, and barrels (all of which are manufactured with permission), M60 rails and trunions, and HK MP5 standard and SD barrels.

Last year, John got serious with the .223 caliber conversion for the M60 machinegun. He now manufactures complete conversion kits, which are available through Vic’s Gun Corporation in Missouri. The manufacturing business is now at the point where John can concentrate on research and development and turn over mass production to his machine shop employees.

One of John’s latest efforts has been to open up an outside firing range on 100 acres of land close to Orlando. The range includes a 1000-yard rifle range, as well as 100 and 200 yard ranges for machinegun rentals. Rental guns include beltfeds, such as the standard M60, .223 M60, RPD, M1919, PKM, Minigun and MG74, and other machineguns including HK MP5, HK 53, G3, Colt M16 in 9mm and .223, Swedish K, Glock 18, Greasegun, Scorpion, and a select fire Remington 1100 shotgun. Other plans for the range include high explosive and pyrotechnic demonstrations in the future. Scott Quinn is a partner in the outside range. Scott owns Mid-Florida Gun Sales, an indoor shooting range and gun shop including Class III firearms.

When you ask John why he started building his own M60’s, he will tell you that it’s because many of the M60’s built by others have quality, dimensional, and functioning problems. He started by first building parts for repairs and for sale to others. After seeing so many poorly made M60’s, John decided to start building entire guns using the parts he was now manufacturing. John gained quite a reputation as a manufacturer of quality parts and firearms. JRW Sports likely manufactured many of the parts and guns you see for sale by others. The M60 is a very reliable and simple gun to work on. Most of the problems with the M60 stem from soft or out of tolerance parts.

When John first got into manufacturing M60 parts, he was on a limited budget. He took the money he had available and contracted out the parts. His plan was to complete one item, sell them, and roll the money back into the business to continue manufacturing more of the needed parts. The first item manufactured were M60 trunions. The money from the sale of the trunions was then used for the manufacturing of M60 rails. Following the M60 rails were the semi-auto M60 rails, which then allowed for the manufacturing of the numerous small components required to assemble complete weapons. Within a year from the start of this process, JRW Sports was manufacturing complete semi-auto M60 receivers for sale. Production of complete receivers started at about 20 per year, with many more do-it-yourself kits sold to others. An even greater number of post sample receivers and full-auto M60 machineguns sold to law enforcement and for export have been made in comparison to the semi-auto M60’s.

The .223 caliber conversion kit for the M60 is finally in production. John has been working on this for a couple of years and has delivered the first units to the marketplace. The kit includes a brand new barrel assembly in either the E-3 Shorty or standard length. Right now, the customer must supply the gas system for the E-3 Shorty, but JRW Sports will be manufacturing their own gas system in the near future. The new variable gas system will eliminate the problem-prone operating rod tube. Other kit components include the bolt assembly, feed tray, and top cover parts. Customers who supply bolts, feed trays, and top covers for the conversion receive a discount. John’s test gun has been shot so much that there’s no rifling left in the barrel, the bolt is chipped, and the gun still runs flawlessly. This gun is used to give demonstrations with 300-400 round belts typically fired, but has also been used with up to 800 rounds fired in a single demonstration. The gun will get so hot that you are unable to hold on to it. This system uses the standard Minimi links and the smaller caliber reduces wear to components of the gun.

The lightweight .308 M60 is currently being developed by JRW Sports. This system will use composite parts for the top cover, receiver, and barrel with the target goal of 14 pounds for the complete system. The .308 round has a lower cyclic rate and superior ballistics in combat as compared to the .223 Minimi. If John is successful in reaching this weight goal with parts that are durable and reliable, this could be a rebirth for the venerable M60 machinegun.

Another manufacturing project is the Colt 9mm magazine well adaptor. These adaptors allow .223 weapons to be converted to 9mm without permanent modifications to the host weapons. The blocks are held in place with setscrews rather than drilled roll pins as found on factory Colt 9mm firearms. You simply install these, put on your 9mm upper, and you’re ready to shoot. John is now working on a one-piece design, rather than a two-piece design, for even better alignment in the weapon.

The folding Glock stock has been a very successful project for JRW Sports. John got the original idea from a similar stock made by Rikert, which was owned by Charlie Allen of University Gun. These stocks were crudely made, and John knew he could take this basic idea and improve it using CNC manufacturing. Charlie brought the stock over to John’s shop where it was examined and improvements made. Sixty units were produced in about three weeks. During the same time, two additional improvements were made, including the lock mechanism. Then an additional 750 units were manufactured in two different production runs. Enough effort was put into this stock that it was patented with eleven separate claims. Interest in the stocks has been as great in Europe as it has been here in the United States. John furnished some of the stocks to the GSG-9 German Special Forces and Austrian Army personnel at a recent SWAT Round Up in Orlando, as well as to an FBI field team. The success of the stock has mainly been attributed to word of mouth and some limited advertising. Adaptors are available so that it will fit on most sizes of Glocks, including the 26, 19, and 17 models.

John started working with Joe Gaddini on 9mm suppressor designs a couple of years ago and together their work has become state of the art. They now offer a Colt 9mm SD ported, integral suppressor, as well as an HK MP5SD suppressor using John’s CNC manufactured baffles and barrels. The newest prototype can is amazingly quiet. John’s .308 suppressor is in the hands of the Navy Seals for evaluation. A new slip-on suppressor for the AR-10T has been developed, as well as a .50 caliber suppressor, which was recently demonstrated at Knob Creek, Kentucky. The TEK 10/22 full-auto conversion parts are now in production, with improvements over the original design. The new parts are more reliable with better springs. A new trigger is being developed, which would retrofit to any full-auto 10/22, where the safety would become the selector. John’s goal is to offer the best quality products with reliability, durability, and accuracy.

There are currently two facilities in use by JRW Sports. One shop is set up for manual operations and assembly, and includes lathes, a Bridgeport mill, Parkerizing center, test-firing apparatus with bullet trap, bead blaster, and welding equipment. The office and display area are in the front of this facility, as well. A separate 1600 square foot facility is located a few blocks away in an industrial park. This is where the CNC Daewoo Puma extended bed lathe and FADAL 10,000-RPM mill are set up for quantity production runs.

Future plans include consolidating these two indoor facilities with the outdoor range, which is located north of Titusville, just off Interstate 95, approximately one hour east of Orlando. This consolidation will reduce travel time and allow for machinegun rentals, sales, manufacturing, and repairs to all be in one location. John is obtaining state and federal explosives licenses to allow customers to handle and set up various explosives in a safe environment on a separate portion of the range. The range facilities will be open to law enforcement for training and to the general public. With such a convenient location, a family could enjoy the beach only a mile away, shoot some machineguns or detonate explosives, and go to Disney World all in the same day.

JRW Sports
1401 South Ridgewood, #4
Edgewater, Florida 32132
Phone: (904) 423-9914

Mid-Florida Gun Sales and Range
2911 West 39th Street, #800
Orlando, Florida 32839
Phone: (407) 428-6225

Vic’s Gun Corporation
P.O. Box 17
Ellsberry, MO 63343
Phone: (573) 898-3132