The SAW; the “Squad Automatic Weapon.” Looking at the photo above, astute observers will note, “Dan, that’s not the SAW, it’s an M240.”

Actually, the M240 is a squad automatic weapon… from the old school definition. In the 10- to 12-man infantry squad, there were mostly riflemen, variously one or two automatic riflemen (the 1918 BAR guys who later were the guys with the full auto switch on their M14), grenadiers, and each rifleman usually had secondary responsibilities. Historically, there’s no squad automatic weapon (machine gun) in the military table of organization and equipment (TOE) at the squad level. The weapons platoon provided the machine gun and lighter mortar support to the squads, as directed. This meant the M1917A1, M1919A4 and A6, M2HB, and later the M60 general purpose machine gun, then the M240G and B variants were all part of the weapons platoon, not the infantry squad.

So, why did we call them Squad Automatic Weapons? Basically, these were support weapons for specially trained machine gunners to deploy in support of the squad, at order from the platoon or company, and had to perform suppressive fire missions and other machine gunner jobs at 1000 meters plus, as well as in closer fighting. 7.62mm was considered the minimum caliber for that. During the Vietnam War, the M60 drifted into more squad level usage, and by the 1970s when the Squad Automatic Weapon program began, a smaller caliber firearm had been decided on with 5.56x45mm round, the same as used by the M16A1 being the final choice. By 1980, the FN Minimi was chosen in the (X)M249 configuration and after various Product Improvement Programs, in 1986 the M249 began integration to the infantry squad. This allowed a belt fed machine gun in every squad, albeit in a smaller caliber with diminished range and capability compared to the 7.62mm machine guns. My personal opinion was that it was more of a belt-fed rifle than a SAW, but the 5.56x45mm M249 has proven itself on the battlefield many times.

In a 1980s parallel development, the U.S. military wanted to replace the M60 GPMG. Saco Defense had the M60E3 then the lighter M60E4, which failed in competition with the M240G, which was the dismounted version of the M240 tank guns. The 240G was, basically, the Belgian MAG-58 that was in use by many nation’s militaries. Don’t confuse the M60E4 of those 1980s trials, with the actual M60E4-issue gun made by U.S. Ordnance today, which is a much more evolved and proven system.

The M240 series guns are large machine guns, larger than the M60 GPMG, but considerably more reliable, and with a longer life. The M60 was designed in the 1950s as a 100,000 round maximum gun. We spoke with the designers back in the 1980s and had a lesson on that issue. They never intended it to be more than a 100,000-round gun. In Vietnam, a door gunner might do more than that in a month of hammering treelines around hot LZs. Thus, the unique receiver stretch gauge… and the advent of the M240G & B series machine guns.

U.S. Ordnance is well known around the world as the manufacturer of the U.S. M2HB and M2A1 machine guns, MK19 Mod 3 grenade machine guns, the M240 series, and the M60E4 and M60E6. So why would they add the M249 “SAW” to their pallet of machine guns?

There is definitely a supply void for the M249 system. There are at least a dozen countries that count on the Minimi/M249 system, and many others that have smaller user populations but larger needs. There are many requirements in the defense industry for M249 as well as support for existing guns.

U.S. Ordnance is an agile company, they are able to focus quickly on a problem, and move into reliable production. We’ve been involved in many machine gun programs, several involving M249 production, and our confidence level in the expertise at U.S. Ordnance is very high. The welding of sheet metal requires very experienced fixture designers, as warpage is always a big issue. I recently toured the facility again, and went through the production lines for the M249 with their production manager.

U.S. Ordnance is bringing their full engineering capability to the table. Their ability to quickly produce machine guns in volume, with high quality and very reliable function, is legendary in today’s market. I reviewed the production line, examined the end products, and as in the past, when I’ve tested their M240 and M60E6 with military spec live firing, we plan to do a 25,000 round live fire program very soon. SADJ will report on this as soon as we have finished. It would seem that adding the M249 machine gun, the Para variant, and support/parts capability to U.S. Ordnance’s production would be a very good fit. We’ll follow up with the full mil-spec test report as soon as it’s done.    

M249 MACHINE GUN SPECS

Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
Weight: 17.06lb (7.73kg) w/bipod & tools
Length: 32.875- 35.25 inches (835-895mm) Complete M249
Barrel Length: 21in or 18in (533mm or 457mm)
Rifling Twist Rate: 1:7in RH
Cyclic Rate of Fire: 700-900 RPM

The United States Marine Corps put their best foot forward once again for the 30th annual Modern Day Marine (MDM) show at Quantico, Virginia. This year’s show was very well attended by both vendors and USMC personnel, with many new vendors on display. Over 8,500 attendees, mostly USMC, kept the over 400 booths energized. The discussions at the show had most of the attendees and vendors very pleased and planning on returning the next year. MDM is always a highly rated show for interaction with not only the higher ranked and hopefully decision makers, but with the rank and file Marines. Most vendors are aware that this is what builds their brand as the young Marines move up in rank they remember the lessons learned not only on the battlefield, but on the display floors as well.

There were many booths for organizations supporting the USMC and veterans. One group in particular SAR would like to bring to our readers’ attention: The U.S. Paralympics Military Program. This group is working with the U.S. Paralympics to help sponsor more of the thousands of severely wounded veterans into the active sports programs they provide. www.usparalympics.org or www.semperfifund.org.

AAI LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) is a technology based program managed through the Joint Service Small Arms Program Office (JSSAP), located at the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. The focus of LSAT is:

• Reduce the weight of weapons carried by warfighters by 35 percent
• Lower the ammunition weight by more than 40 percent
• Maintain or improve lethality and reliability over current systems
• Improve ergonomics and logistics
• Reduce training and maintenance time

These promising technologies continue to be matured and tested. Current program objectives are to:

• Develop the cased telescoped ammunition and light machine gun to TRL 7 and conduct an operational demonstration
• Continue maturation and demonstrations of the caseless ammunition and light machine gun
• Develop and demonstrate a cased telescoped rifle to TRL 5 (www.aaicorp.com)

Beretta– The TRG Folding Stock can be retrofitted to all TRG precision sniper rifles without any modifications to the weapon itself. Front to rear: PX4 .45 ACP SOCOM trials pistol with Gemtech Blackside suppressor. TRG-42 PSR .338 Lapua Magnum rifle with standard sidefolder. Beretta owns Steiner so they are featuring the Military 4-16×50, and the suppressor is the Surefire LLC model FA338SS. The Harris Bipod was chosen for this. The TRG stock system accepts Remington 700 USMC Short action and the M24 long action. Scope is the Schmidt & Bender PMII. The Harris bipod is chosen for this. (www.berettale.com)

One of the busiest booths at the show was the FNH USA booth with its emphasis on small arms for the warfighter. The SCAR program was well received with a constant flow of Marines looking over the rifle system, and the sniper and M3M .50 displays were also busy. (www.fnhusa.com)

The General Dynamics MK47 Grenade Machine Gun is a lightweight new generation of launcher that has been well accepted by testers and users alike. The idea for making it squad portable was put to Eagle and they designed a 4 pack system for packing this out – one pack that is for the MK47 itself, the next for tripod and FCU, and the next (add as many as you want) to carry the soft box ammo carriers in either 32 or 48 rounds. The soft carriers reduce the bulk of the ammo containers, but once loaded, will fit inside the original ammo cans the 40x53mm linked grenades come in making for a quick fit in a Humvee or other vehicle. (www.gd-ots.com) or (www.eagleindustries.com)

C. Reed (Trey) Knight III holds the M110 Carbine, the newly adopted Knight’s Armament Company 7.62×51 mm sniper rifle in its shorter profile. The patented dimpled ‘Heavy’ barrel delivers expected HB accuracy and consistency results, while providing lighter weight and more rapid cooling. 7.62mm M110 Carbine (P/N: 25749) pictured with Leupold 1.1-8x CQBSS (optional P/N 25884)

Prolific parts and weapons supplier LaRue Firearms presented several caliber variations of their Optimized Battle Rifle. The 7.62x51mm carbine version (shown) provides semiautomatic long range capability in a smaller package. (www.laruetactical.com)

The LMO/VLTOR manufactured PKM 7.62x54R machine gun that LMO has been supplying to USG customers. LMO is the GSA contractor armorer trainer for U.S. and foreign small arms, as well as a long-time supplier of unusual munitions. (www.longmountain.com)

LWRC featured their M6-G series rifles with the reliable short stroke gas piston operation they are well known for in their M16 based platforms. The REPR in 7.62x51mm was quite popular with the USMC attendees and is a contender for consideration on sniper systems. (www.LWRCI.com)

ManroyUSA.The MK43 Mod 0 EBS (Electro-optical BoreSight assembly) is utilized for accurately aligning weapons with their sighting systems. The EBS employs a state of the art color video camera and permits a single user to accurately and remotely align the weapon to the sight from the safety of the gunner’s position. The EBS provides a safe, easy to use, accurate, fast and reliable tool for boresighting that yields high first round hit probability. The ease of use of the EBS minimizes the time required to perform boresighting and maximizes the convenience and the frequency of the procedure. The EBS retains its accuracy over a wide range of environmental conditions and permits the alignment process to be accomplished at up to 2,000+ meters. (www.manroy-usa.com)

McCurdy’s Armor Dynamic Defense Materials, LLC is supplying a portable armored wall system named in honor of fallen Marine Corporal Ryan McCurdy. This armor system is fast to set up and as a single wall is effective up to 7.62mm threats. An interior wall can be added as well as sand-fill to bring that protection up to 12.7mm. (www.ddmat.com)

The Metal Storm Multi-Shot Accessory Underbarrel Launcher (MAUL) is an ultra-lightweight 12 gauge gun system that attaches to the barrels of the M4 and M16 Modular Weapon Systems (MWS). With Metal Storm’s stacked round firing system, the war fighter can load and fire five shots simultaneously in a single chamber, maximizing mission effectiveness. (www.metalstorm.com)

Nammo-Talley and Raytheon The new 83mm SERPENT shoulder fired launcher is a reloadable tube using a variety of task chosen ammunition that may be fired from enclosure. The three current workhorse rounds are the Novel Explosive for Urban Use, the High Explosive Anti-Armor, and the High Explosive Dual Purpose. The SERPENT weighs 10 pounds (4.5 kg), has an overall length of 32.4 inches (82.2 cm) in the carry position, and has a range of 500 meters (1,640 feet). (www.nammotalley.com) and (www.raytheon.com)

MSG Military Systems Group started in 1984 and has been supplying mount and weapon related products ever since. They are a GSA provider and are online at the e-buy system. (www.milsysgroup.com)

US Ordnance- STS US Ordnance’s display featured a twin M2HB .50 caliber machine gun set up with right and left hand feeds. US Ordnance has numerous government contracts on the M2HB as well as the MK43 Mod O (M60E4) 7.62x51mm machine gun. The twins are set onto a naval mount that is one of the featured products of Special Tactical Services, LLC. STS is committed to providing the highest level of training possible to all of their clients and their main business line is providing GS approved training as well as contracted security in operations. (www.usord.com) and (www.spectacserv.com)

Rheinmettal and Vingtech provided a variety of solutions and enhancements for the 40x53mm platforms. Perhaps the most interesting was the Vingtech MK19 Capability Upgrade. This system was combat proven on the HK GMG and brings new accuracy to the MK19 system. Upgrade package includes the Vingmate Fire Control System, Vingtech Combi Softmount and the Vingtech Video Trainer. (www.vingtech.com)

RPG Stopper – The ShotScreen RPG Defeat System is an active protection system that can be mounted on new or retrofitted LAVs and a variety of other vehicles and stationary platforms. The system releases a wave of small diameter, low velocity non-lethal pellets from several non-slewing locations to defeat multiple anti-tank type RPG grenades. To defeat an incoming RPG, two adjacent warheads are fired to form an overlapping pattern of pellets. The cloud of pellets travel to the intercept plane at a low rate of speed. This pattern, or ‘shot screen,’ intercepts the RPG round at close range from the protected vehicle and neutralized the RPG to nullify its lethality. This is done by short-circuiting the electrical path in the dual cone nose as shown in the picture. In an alternate version, it pre-detonated PG7s at a significant stand-off distance. (www.gd-ots.com)

Magpul has been providing a prolific line of upgrade products as well as their in-house weapons designs, but the game-changing P-Mag 30 is still one of the hottest items at any show. (www.magpul.com)

Carl Zeiss presented some new products: Front: 4×30 fixed 4x ballistic prop compensated with 8 degree field of view; L-R NSV-1000 long range night vision, IRV-600 IR-Thermal Imager 1.2km range to detect a human, NSV-600 Intermediate range image intensifier, 6-24 x 72 Hensoldt military optic, Rear: Spotter 60 20-60x spotter optic. (www.zeiss.com)

Tippmann Ordnance Company, related to the longtime U.S. company that produced the Tippmann miniature fully functional one-half scale Browning machine guns and air rifles/paintball equipment, has produced a series of training gear that is pneumatically operated. Training suicide bomber vests, roadside IEDs, and the new M1A-M2 Mortar Launcher (shown). The M1A-M2 is a paint marker system resembling a military crew served mortar, similar in visual impact with a standard military 81mm mortar. The marker system is a 62mm, smoothbore, muzzle loading, gas/Co2 operated, manually fired, high angle-of-fire training device. The device propels a 20 oz. marker round (water soluble marker paint), with a 4 round per minute firing cycle rate, with an effective range of approximately 500 yards, providing a 70+ feet in diameter ‘kill zone’ while employing a maximum operating pressure of 200 psi. (www.tippmannordnance.com)

In keeping with their tradition of support at MDM, SureFire had a well-stocked booth. Of note were the mil-spec rifle suppressors. Top to bottom: FA762K for 7.62x51mm rifles weighing 19 oz (539gr) and has a length of 8.4 inches (19.1 cm); MICRO for the 5.56x45mm rifles weighing 12 oz (340gr) with a length of 4.0 inches (10.2cm); MINI for the 5.56×45 rifles weighs 14 oz (397gr) with a length of 5.0 inches (12.7cm). (www.surefire.com)

Marine Corps Warfighting Lab – The MCWL is an effective group whose mission is to “Conduct concept-based experimentation and wargaming to develop and evaluate tactics, techniques, procedures, and technologies in order to support the warfighter by enhancing current and future warfighting capabilities.” This is accomplished through the various divisions of the lab; Science & Technology Integration; Global War on Terrorism Operations; Experiment Division; Technology Division, as well as several other groups. (www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil)

(Editor’s note: Special Tactical Services, McClellan and Renz’ highly respected tactical training and resources firm, is an important partner of US Ordnance, current manufacturer of the substantially improved M60 series machine guns and spare parts. Both companies have long been fighting a determined retrograde action in support of US military personnel and other users of thousands of these battle proven guns that are still deployed worldwide in the Global War on Terror. This interview was originally conducted to provide background information for Robert Bruce’s report on US Ordnance’s MK43 series machine guns, featured in the April 2008 issue of SAR. Because of its remarkably candid and necessarily controversial elements, SAR believes it deserves to run on its own, providing much information that is both relevant for today and important for the historical record.)

Special Tactical Services, LLC, established in 2000 by former Navy SEAL Dale McClellan, offers highly effective tactical training in a variety of weapons and antiterror/security disciplines that increase the war fighting capabilities of today’s operators in the Global War on Terror and on the front lines of Homeland Security. STS is an officially listed US Government General Services Administration vendor and works for the US Navy and its Center for Security Forces. STS instructors have provided uniquely effective training for numerous federal, local, & state law enforcement agencies as well as elite units in every one of the US Armed Forces.

STS is also the exclusive weapons and armorer training partner to US Ordnance, current manufacturer of improved M60 series machine guns. Additionally, STS designs and manufacturers a number of innovative products including advanced Shipboard Ballistic Weapons Stands and Modular Armored Security Shields for Entry Control Points.

Dale McClellan, President and CEO, has over 16 years of military and private sector experience and is responsible for shaping the future growth and diversification of STS. He graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL Training in 1990. While serving at SEAL Team Eight he was deployed to Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993. Trained as a Machine Gunner, Point Man, Sniper and Scout Sniper Instructor, McClellan finished his military career training Seal Team members for combat operations as an Assault Cell instructor.

Steve Renz, Senior Vice President, with nearly 20 years of instructional experience in the military, law enforcement and the private sector, is among those responsible for the direction of all activities that Special Tactical Services offers. A six year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, he served as an anti-tank assault man assigned to a Combined Anti-Armor Team, a Scout Sniper and Scout Sniper Instructor, as well as a Close Quarters Battle Instructor. While assigned as a sniper to the Surveillance and Target Acquisition platoon with First Battalion, Eighth Marines, he conducted several deployments to the Mediterranean area and to the Middle East. He later served as a Scout Sniper Instructor at Camp Lejeune, N.C. and went on to assist in the development and implementation of the Marine Corps’ Designated Marksman program. As a CQB Instructor, he was responsible for the training of Marines and other military personnel in all facets of handgun, submachine gun, shotgun and rifle/carbine combat marksmanship as well as all facets of covert and dynamic entries for vital asset recovery.

Special Tactical Services, LLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia

SAR: This interview is intended to gather background information for an in-depth look at the MK43 Mod 1, latest member of the M60 family that the Navy calls a ‘legacy weapon.’ Although officially on their way out, if you go on Navy News website and start pulling down photographs of Inshore Boat Units and others deployed to GWOT, there are a heck of a lot of M60s out there in various configurations.

Dale McClellan: The irony in this (MK43) feature for Small Arms Review is I wish it was done five years ago. Because when we started trying to keep the 60 alive, started performing CPR on it, nobody would listen.

Everyone wants our Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines to have the best weapons. FN builds the machine guns with the exception of the M2HB. Following the lead of the Marine Corps and the Army, the Navy set the system up where the M240 was to replace the MK43, or the M60 series in its system. Now with the protracted war effort, the armed forces is having a difficult time keeping up with sustainment, and total replacement of the M60 is being pushed out even further.

The issue we had is what you just said, detailed in a letter that we wrote and circulated back then, (see “The Battle Proven M60,” linked on the STS website). We wrote this and sent it out to everybody because there are anywhere between five thousand to ten thousand M60s in the Navy’s inventory, still being deployed on Navy ships and with reserve units throughout the world. But the Navy says it’s an ‘unsupported weapon system’ and they sent out emails to the effect that it’s to be replaced by the M240.

Unfortunately, that meant support for the M60, M60E3 and Mk43s was going to be through cannibalization of M60’s currently in inventory. There is a potential problem though with cannibalizing M60s for spare parts. What most people don’t realize is that the feed cam assembly, cartridge guides, and feed pawl assembly on the Mk43 are not interchangeable with older models.

Replacement was not going to be finished for several years to come. And it wouldn’t matter if it was six days or six years, if someone has to employ an M60 weapon system there’s a high probability that it would not operate properly because the systems are 20+ years old and have been maintained with spare parts that were supplied by the lowest bidder; or worse through cannibalization of incompatible used parts.

We did a firing demonstration for Congressman Mark Kirk and he was impressed with the weapon (Mk 43 Mod 1) and our arguments. This led to a news article in the Washington Times, ‘Rummy Asked to Save Rambo’s Favorite Gun.’ (Linked on the STS website). It was taken all the way to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. And we tried to get it saved because it was already out there, it was more cost effective, it’s a good American made weapon system. But we lost that battle ultimately and the gun became ‘unsupported.’ The government had made up its mind; the money had already changed hands.

In Crane’s (NAVSEA Crane, the Navy’s central small arms support facility) defense they said these things are decided and planned three to six years out. And there was no turning around the decision on the M60. So the 60 will continue to get phased out and be replaced by the 240, or the MK48 in some capacities. Which makes more sense. And hopefully the Marine Corps and everybody will start to get some type of shorter 240 so they can have a manportable/dismountable configuration.

“Unsupported”

SAR: There must be plenty of M60 replacement parts in the inventory.

McClellan: Unfortunately, some of the people at Crane don’t know what they’re sending out. When several Navy Units received their M60s they had Basic parts on a Mk43 with an E3 forearm. I mean it was terrible. Obviously, somebody doesn’t know what they’re putting together. They think a M60 part is a M60 part is a M60 part. A Navy briefing about problems shows how much money was allocated in 2002 and how they were going to overhaul 595 guns. All were SEAL Team guns; the only ones they were still supporting.

The Navy has said, ‘Well, we have all these guns in inventory. As they break we would replace the parts but there’s nobody manufacturing parts.’

Well there is. US Ordnance manufactures top quality, MILSPEC parts under a US government contract. The problem is in the bins of parts the Navy currently has. They’re mismatched, old parts from some of the first models up to the E3s. What most don’t realize is that those top covers and a lot of other parts are not interchangeable. They mess up what we call ‘the timing’ of the weapon system and cause it to malfunction. So now you have individuals who may or may not be educated on those exact parts and they’re taking these components, interchanging them, and consequently it decreases the reliability of the weapon system.

Steve Renz: One of the biggest things that really forced us to educate ourselves on the 60 was that no two of the Navy’s guns had the exact same parts and pieces. There were different bolt plugs, different buttstocks, barrel configurations, all kinds of different parts and pieces on the ‘same weapon.’ So it forced us to do a lot of research. And what we found was when we started to do some inspections on some of the different ships and different units is the Gunners Mates and Armorers had no idea about the Product Improvement Program from back in the 1960s. There were receivers that had obviously never even gone through PIP (Product Improvement Program upgrade). There appeared to be little to no subject matter expertise on the weapons system and we wanted to help fix that.

We needed to know what some potential problems are if you have a basic M60 that’s running components from different models including the MK43. So as a private company we were able to take a lot of these different parts and pieces, mismatch them, throw ‘em into a gun, run it and see what the problems were. And we found there were some significant problems. This resulted in simple malfunctions and stoppages to complete weapon failure in some cases.

STS Arrives on Station

SAR: How did STS get involved with the Navy’s M60 situation?

Renz: I think a lot of that happened around the 2000 – 2001 time frame when we started doing training for the Mk43 with the Submarine Squadron Support Unit (SSSU) command which is now called NSSU

McClellan: SSSU was the first unit that came to us. This is after they went to the SEAL Teams at Little Creek Amphibious Base, Virginia, and said, ‘Hey, we have all these MK43s like yours but our guys don’t know how to use them.’

The SEAL Teams basically said, ‘We know these guys at Special Tactical Services, call them.’ So they came to us to learn all about the MK43. Building on my SEAL Team background (Team Eight from 1990 to 1998), STS put together a program built from the same principle mechanics that I had implemented back then as an Assault Cell instructor focusing on weapons manipulation and tailored it to what we thought would work for the fleet Sailors who operate the weapon alone in a watch duty station or for any machine gunner for that matter.

We started training the Navy with the MK43 guns and ammunition they had – shooting a thousand rounds per Sailor. But when you start putting that kind of volume through a machine gun it’ll break. Doesn’t matter if it’s a 60, a 240 or a .50, eventually it’ll break.

This is when we started finding about the support that could or could not be provided to the Sailors. They weren’t getting the parts, and the guns were broken.

At the same time we started thinking, these are their wartime guns with so many rounds through ‘em! This is ridiculous. They ought to have training guns that they can beat up and break. We got a line to Saco Defense but they referred us to the new owners at General Dynamics (GD). GD wouldn’t touch us unless we were buying hundreds if not thousands of parts. ‘You want twenty firing pins? Yeah. Call us when you want twenty thousand firing pins.’ So they wouldn’t have anything to do with us either.

Alliance with US Ordnance

McClellan: GD had been extremely reluctant to tell us but I complained enough to them that eventually they told us about US Ordnance, which had bought the M60’s manufacturing rights, technical data package and all the tooling. Once we found out about US Ordnance it was ‘Game On!’ Now we had a source for current parts manufactured to MIL-SPEC (military specification) in the United States of America. This enabled us to fix the Sailors’ guns with the correct components.

Later, we told US Ordnance that we would like the opportunity to come out there and show them the training program we had been putting together. We want you to tell us from a manufacturer’s perspective if there’s anything wrong with the course. So Steve Renz and I flew out to Reno, Nevada, met with Norm Justice and some of the other guys, and taught them our Navy machine gun course. They had a few things for us that were constructive criticism but overall their opinion was, ‘The course is incredible,’ and they sponsored us as their exclusive trainers.

As we went down the path with this they started supporting us with everything we needed. They were fantastic to us and the troops. Also, they were probably one of the most receptive companies I’ve ever seen to constructive criticism. We would call them up and say, ‘Hey, these roller cams keep breaking.’ They’d say, ‘Send us every roller cam that breaks.’ So we would do a round count and we would send it to them. And what was amazing about US Ordnance is they took that data, they looked at their metallurgies and data provided, and they listened to everything we told them and they built a better machine gun.

SAR: So MIL-SPEC wasn’t enough? US Ordnance went beyond that?

McClellan: Well, not exactly, and they could explain it more accurately; but as the Viet Nam war wound down and the M60 support and sustainment transitioned to peacetime, various spare parts contracts were bid out to the lowest bidder. Quality suffered and substandard parts flooded the system. The M60 was not alone in this and as a result several revisions were made in the federal purchasing code to protect small arms manufacturing companies with respect to bolts, barrels, and receivers. But the damage had already been done. The system was flooded with substandard and outdated M60 spare parts.

Once US Ordnance got the M60 under their roof they were able to control both ends of the spectrum using only newly manufactured parts on their weapon system. If there was a problem with a part they could find out where the failures were. If the rollers on the actuator cam assemblies were breaking, they stopped outsourcing with that supplier or they held them to a tighter tolerance or material specification so that it matched the print and it worked with the other internal components as the system was designed.

By The Book

SAR: We understand that STS prepared a highly detailed chart that specifies the right parts for each variation of the M60. Is that institutionalized back through Navy channels?

McClellan: Yes, we gave it to them. But because everyone assumed the 240 would replace the 60 by now it was never implemented.

Renz: That’s one of the big things with this current CSWI (Crew Served Weapon Instructor) Program that STS assisted in developing for the Navy. Those guys are going to be instructors so they’re educated on it. We want them to be able to go back and work on the four guns they’re going to come across in the Navy system; the original M60, the M60E3, or MK43, and some Deltas (aircraft guns with spade grips) out there in the Air Wings.

MK43 Conversion Kits

SAR: What came next?

McClellan: We went forward with US Ordnance to NAVSEA Crane and tried to get them to support doing a remanufacturing process. To at least take the new US Ordnance parts and send out the A and B type kits to have the guns rebuilt so they were functional in a combat capacity similar to what was done for the SEAL Teams. That seemed to fall on deaf ears and frustrated the hell out of us.

Renz: A lot of the guys who come through our course, or see the videos, want the conversion kit for the MK43. This is really about a five minute project that costs just around forty five hundred dollars: a lot cheaper than a twelve thousand dollar FN MK48. That’s been our argument. You’ve got so many of these M60 receivers that are still in the system. For $4,500 per weapon system you can turn it into the MK43.

850 Round Bursts

SAR: Tell us about that amazing video on YouTube of the MK43 firing a continuous 850 round burst.

McClellan: I think everyone except US Ordnance and STS laid claim to that video, but yes, we did the first run of those 850 plus round endurance test.

As we went through the parts on the gun and US Ordnance fixed what was broken, they started making operational changes based on some of our recommendations and some of theirs. About then I found this article that talked about Army testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in the 1990s. Test results for MRBF (mean rounds between failures) were quoted as very good on the FN MAG 58 – the Army M240 – and very bad on Saco’s M60E3. They said the mean rounds between stoppages (MRBS) for sustained rate burst fire and normal operation on the MAG was 2,962 and MRBF was 6,442. On the M60 the MRBS was a mere 846 and the MRBF was 1,699.

The point was that we had to prove that these old MRBS and MRBF figures didn’t apply to US Ord’s new MK43s or for that matter any correctly assembled version. The Army said the MRBS was 846 rounds so we decided to test that theory and demonstrate a continuous burst of 850 rounds.

We called up Curtis Debord, and asked, ‘If I linked 850 rounds and pulled the trigger one time would the light and short Commando barrel take it?’ They gave it some thought and said no. Based on the temperature rise of about one and a half degree per bullet, they estimated failure would occur at something like 700-800 rounds as the barrel material becomes compromised at temperatures above 1,000 degrees

I told Curtis that to ‘myth bust’ the stated MRBS we need a barrel that can do more than 850 rounds. Think about it – most special operations guys don’t carry a spare barrel. A SEAL Team operators average load out is 600 plus rounds and the old ‘Predator Packs’ could hold 800 to a thousand rounds. Also, most ‘H-Gear/LBE’ guys (infantry grunts) carry around 300 rounds plus a few hundred more carried by those in the squad.

So we wanted to shoot 850 rounds through one barrel in one continuous burst. But how do you do that? The answer was to take a heavy barrel and chop it down and flute it. That way it had the original hard sight on it, it’s shorter, it’s a little bit lighter and it has more surface area for the cooling. So US Ord built one … and as soon as we got it we pushed it to see what it would do, and it worked at least two times for 850+ rounds. Then we did some 600 rounders for Special Forces groups and others. Several on the same barrel until eventually the barrel bulged a little bit. ‘Hey that doesn’t look right,’ so we sent it back to US Ordnance.

The outside contour on the ‘Shorty’ barrel has an enlarged profile where the Stellite liner ends and the hard chromed barrel begins. This strengthens the intersection of the Stellite liner with the barrel and this is where the barrel first bulged after repeated continuous bursts. So US Ordnance adjusted their barrel contours.

Then, assisting US Ordnance at the 2003 Armed Forces Journal (AFJ) Shootout in North Carolina, we were ready to go public with the 850 round burst. This was a production US Ordnance Mk43 that AFJ evaluators had been shooting all day. When AFJ evaluators came up we’d hand over 100 round belts and let them shoot the hell out of that gun. And at the end of the day, we didn’t clean it or anything. All we did was add a whole bunch more CLP on it in preparation for the 850 round endurance test that would be recorded on video.

FN set up on the Known Distance (KD) Range that day because they were demonstrating several other products that were not suitable for the carbine range. We have not tried it but I am not sure that a M240 chrome lined barrel could sustain 850 rounds continuous.

But it still goes back to the MRBS. What we were saying is ‘let’s call a spade a spade’. Put the weapon on the line and let’s do it.’ So I fed 850 rounds of ammunition to ensure there were no binding issues with the stacked 850 rounds and we asked one of the evaluators, Jerry Hurd, to shoot it; a guy who’d been through our training. We wanted somebody we knew would not let off the trigger and could hold the gun on target safely. So Jerry got down and he pulled the trigger and held it down for 850 rounds. And the demonstration went flawless.

SAR: Even after long lines of people had fired a hundred rounds each.

Renz: It was probably close to four thousand rounds through it earlier that day.

A funny thing happened during the 850 round burst. A friend of ours was over on the KD range. When the gun kicked off everyone there just stopped and listened as it chugged and chugged away for what seemed like forever. He said that when it ended everybody was like, ‘Damn!’ The whole idea was to beat that 846 rounds and everyone knew that it worked. It was a pretty bold statement and it was caught on video.

(Editor’s Note: The video recording of this remarkable demonstration has achieved something of a cult status with tens of thousands of viewings on YouTube and other sites. See the resource listing at the end of this feature.)

MK43 Mod 1 Team

SAR: You’ve got a MK43 Mod 1 right here in the conference room. How about walking us through the significant changes that STS and US Ordnance have collaborated on in these weapons.

McClellan: It was clear to us that if they’re this receptive we need to give them some other thoughts and ideas. David Delp, a design engineer at US Ordnance, had several ideas that paralleled some of ours so I would be careful on taking too much credit.

Renz: One of the big things we saw was the military’s obviously going to different types of optics, lasers, pistol grips, everything else, and needed a place to attach ‘em. We went in and I think they were already working on this top cover with the integral rail. We asked, ‘Why don’t you put rails on the front end of the gun?’

So Delp designed the new forend with the rails up front, but we found out it wouldn’t fit some of the Navy’s mounts, like the MK82 with two attachment points. We took a Dremel tool and cut it out, and we would take pictures and send it to ‘em and say, ‘Hey, you need to open this up or it won’t fit on the old gunner shield and some of the other mounting systems’ and they did.

McClellan: These takedown pins right here were designed by Mark Pierson, who now works for STS. We asked US Ord to do a knurled version for the top cover. They were knurled on both sides so you could pull ‘em apart easier.

We asked them to implement the circular aperture (rear sight) on all the guns and were surprised to find out it was already standard on all new production guns.

Another of our other recommendations they’re playing around with is a larger charging handle. One that’s thicker so you can get a better grasp on it.

We talked about the screw on the cocking handle. Pierson started using an aircraft screw because the cocking handle retainer screw kept coming off under vibration. Based on this feedback and feedback from their international customers, US Ordnance redesigned their cocking handle retaining screw with a Teflon insert to keep it from backing out. So US Ord was not only fixing the things that break, they were listening to the operator’s perspective, based on thousands and thousands of rounds with these Sailors and their customers around the world.

We did the new carrying handle that’s on the barrel, going through three or four different versions so it didn’t block the sight. We actually built up JB Weld on the front end of these and mailed ‘em off to US Ord and they adjusted them.

Now US Ordnance came up with the nice hard plate that mounts to the receiver to hold the ammunition (assault bandoleer) to the side. Which is still one of the biggest problems with the 240 – you can’t mount a hundred rounds of ammunition physically to the side of a 240.

SAR: But that assault pack hanger dates back to Vietnam.

McClellan: Actually, it was attached to the feed tray. Problem was, in order to clear malfunctions, you had to lift up to 6.5 pounds of ammo with it. US Ordnance attached it to where the ammo mounts to the receiver and you can easily lift up the feed tray now.

One of the things was this link port, a lot of times the links will sit up on top or this will hit ‘em and knock ‘em down in the receiver. We were looking to get rid of this piece so you could lay the ammo on quicker and not have other problems. So we took a hacksaw and cut the top part off, but that reduced the rigidity. So US Ordnance is looking at building this piece into the top cover.

People always ask about the bolt locking lugs and why shavings would come off them. That’s normal for a Sixty but most people don’t like to see that. US Ordnance is changing the metallurgies between the barrel extension and the bolt locking lugs and have corrected that issue.

Man Portable Medium MGs

SAR: What interaction has there been between STS and other military services related to machine gun training?

McClellan: We’ve taught USMC units all over the country, some Coast Guard and the US Army Special Operations Command came to us and we ran a course for Special Forces guys at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They know all the foreign weapons, they know all the guns. So we did an in-field armorers and weapons analysis course for them. This afforded the opportunity to evaluate the MK43 and they wanted to talk about the M60 and some of the improvements that were being made because the Army was saying, ‘Maybe we should look at this weapon again for dismounted applications.’

SAR: Well how about what recently happened with the 101st Airborne? They were using (US Ord M60E4/MK43s) in Iraq and apparently loved it. US Ordnance sent SAR some enthusiastic emails and a couple of pictures of the gun in combat use in Iraq that were forwarded to them from an officer in the division’s 3rd Special Troops Battalion.

McClellan: It’s unlikely that the Army will do anything like that for other infantry units – maybe for the Rangers or Special Forces. But we’ve resigned ourselves to the fact that a lightened and chopped 240 will be the next big thing here. But right now this (MK43 Mod 1) exists, it’s lighter, it’s less expensive, and it works.

Everyone’s realizing the 240 is too big for dismounted missions. There’s no ‘A gunner’ (assistant) anymore to operate under the ‘crew-served’ application. Soliders and Marines operating the weapon system themselves today and the M240 is too big for these types of dismounted applications. Just ask any forward deployed service member using these weapons.

The proof of that is FN, responding to a USSOCOM requirement, built the MK48. This is FN’s 7.62mm version of the MK46, which was basically an upsized M249 SAW; in our opinion a 5.56 frame beefed up for 7.62. From SEAL Team evaluations in the beginning, and depending on the person you talk with now, they’re having problems with the gun.

There’s been talk of a 240 ‘shorty,’ where they’re scaling down a 240 (M240E6/KSP58). This seems to be a more logical approach and same thing they did with the M60 when they built the E3 and the Mk43.

Our argument the whole time has been the Mk43 already exists, it’s already in the system. You put the modification kit out through the remanufacturing process, and you have your shorter, lighter machine gun.

War in Cyberspace

McClellan: I was making the M60 argument online in tactical forums with a bunch of SEAL Team guys and others, going back and forth about the 60s and other weapons. So I said, ‘Alright, enough of this cyber chat, let’s go to the range.’ At the range, I showed them the weapon system, we put the conversion kit on one of their weapons, shot it and ran another 850-round burst. Needless to say we established new ground and a mutual respect for the weapon system.

Another item was the published weights for the M240 machine gun. We put a 240 on a scale and it wasn’t even close to what the military manuals stated. So we were trying to figure out how did they get the weight? Well, it appears the M240 receiver weighs that much – not the M240 with the barrel, top cover, etc. In the end, the published weights that we have seen are a bit confusing.

So we weighed a M60 receiver then the receiver with each different type of barrel, every different configuration we could come up with, rounding everything off to the nearest half pound. That way when people would say, ‘Well yeah, but it’s heavier than a 240,’ we ask, ‘What configuration is your 240 in?’ The bottom line is a modern Mk43 is lighter than a M240 and comparable to a Mk48

We went around and ‘round and it kept fueling our fire, it was a good time and a great learning experience. We have a high level of professional respect for anyone involved in providing quality products to the troops.

Conclusion

SAR: In the meantime, there are a whole lot of M60s out there and they need to work right.

McClellan: I’ve talked to units within the last couple of weeks that are getting guns given to them today to go to war and they are M60s!

The sad part is that an old combat proven American made work horse is on her way out. Like the M2HB, she’s been around for a long time, seen a lot of wars and killed a lot of bad guys. But the deal had already been done; the US military was determined to replace the 60. By 2003 she was on her way out, there was no changing the Government’s mind. I was the last person you’d have heard say that eight years ago, but the writing’s on the wall.

Evolution of the M60
    By Robert Bruce

The light and handy 7.62mm NATO caliber M60 General Purpose Machine Gun was developed by the US Army in the aftermath of WWII and fielded in 1957. A departure from traditionally machined heavy steel, it could be made cheap and fast on a stamped sheet metal receiver.

Determined to replace all its Browning-designed M1919 series guns, the Army began a series of modifications to the basic M60. The M60D came first, a helicopter door gun characterized by spade grips and prominent ring sight. The solenoid-fired M60E2 was developed about the same time, a coaxial gun for tanks and external mounting on helicopter gunships.

“PIP” (Product Improvement Program) parts upgrades were applied along the way to address certain design and performance deficiencies.

The M60E3 followed, dropping five pounds in a major overhaul demanded by the Marine Corps. The weight loss unfortunately came with poor durability and reduced performance.

Navy SEALs liked their custom chopped regular M60s but the troubled E3 wasn’t up to the job. Long time M60 manufacturer Saco Defense began delivering a retrofit parts package – the M60E4 – in 1994, receiving the Navy designation MK43 Mod 0.

Still reasonably light and somewhat 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.

After US Ordnance acquired exclusive manufacturing rights to all M60 series guns in 2000, their reliability and durability increased tremendously. However, by this time the US Army – eventually to be followed by the rest of the Armed Forces – had made an irreversible decision to phase out Sixties in favor of the Belgian designed M240 series. The US Navy is the M60’s last major user but all of these are being replaced as quickly as M240s are delivered by FN Manufacturing.

The MK43 Mod 1 is US Ordnance’s latest version of the SEAL Team classic Sixty, readily identified by an integral accessory mounting rail on the feed cover and three more on a redesigned forearm. A retrofit parts kit is available from US Ordnance that will make any serviceable M60 receiver into this light, short, versatile, and powerful one-man machine gun.

Find Out More

US Ordnance, Inc.: www.usord.com
Special Tactical Services, LLC: www.spectacserv.com

• STS website has a link to the letter “The Battle Proven M60”
• STS website has a link to the Washington Times news story “Rummy asked to rescue Rambo’s favorite gun.”
• STS website has a link to the 850 round demonstration video (also seen on www.youtube.com – search “M60 850 rounds” )

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

“The Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program has made tremendous progress, which includes a fully functioning dynamic model of the weapons system, a working weapon prototype, and hundreds of cased telescopic rounds fired to date.” Kori Spiegel, US Army ARDEC, Joint Service Small Arms Program

Ms. Spiegel’s presentation during the symposium part of NDIA’s annual gathering of infantry weaponry innovators should be of particular interest to SAW gunners and others who stand to benefit from scientific advances that are cutting the weight of weapons and ammunition. Sharing the rostrum with AAI’s Paul Shipley, her briefing detailed ongoing developments in JSSAP’s multi-million dollar Light Weight Machine Gun and Ammunition program.

AAI is particularly well suited to head up the effort, bringing decades of experience with innovative concepts such as the Vietnam era SPIW, ACR ca. 1990, and the run-up to today’s OICW. They have assembled a similarly distinguished team of companies for the program including ARES, Alliant Techsystems, Battelle Institute, St. Marks Powder, and Omega Training Group.

Recognizing that an alternative to traditional brass cased and steel linked ammunition represents the most productive avenue to meaningful reduction in overall system weight, two alternatives are being simultaneously explored, both featuring projectiles that are “telescoped” in a cavity in the propellant.

The CTA (Cased Telescoped Ammunition) employs conventional powder, primer and projectile, but packaged in polymer casings with synthetic links. This approach is said to be a “low risk” option, yielding significant weight reduction at acceptable levels of cost, complexity and weapon performance.

Fully caseless configuration is the second alternative, using advanced propellant technology where each round is fully consumed on firing so no case extraction and ejection action is necessary. This remarkable cartridge concept was developed to a high degree by Dynamit Nobel back in 1990 for HK’s G11 rifle and is said to promise a greater degree of weight reduction.

AAI has been successfully burst firing CTA in a prototype weapon that is evolving based on engineering refinement and application of advances in materials technology. Concept drawings show the gun as having a rotating chamber with in-line push-through feed and ejection. A fluted, quick change barrel gives high stiffness and heat exchange. Right now the configuration and construction are very conventional with extensive use of alloys and polymers.

Program goals call for successful demonstration firing next year, then transition to Program Manager Soldier Weapons by 2010.

While a standout for this correspondent, the JSSAP/AAI briefing was only one of more than three dozen compelling presentations given during the period 16 to 18 May in Albuquerque’s impressive Convention Center. Other topics of interest included updates on weapons and equipment for Special Operations Forces, NATO research and development, a status report from Program Manager Soldier Weapons, and representatives of each of the US Armed Services charting near term plans for small arms upgrades and replacements. A few morsels from this banquet:

• Marine Corps Systems Command is looking for something beyond the SAW, but needs it sooner than 2010. “The Infantry Automatic Rifle… a light weight, magazine fed, 5.56mm, individual weapon,” sounds something like the CIS ULTIMAX.
• Suppressors are big with all the services seeking noise and flash reduction for everything from Barrett fifties to pistol poppers. Opportunities abound for designers and manufacturers.
• While USSOCOM is moving at flank speed to field the SCAR family, it is not neglecting those current operators still carrying M4 type carbines. NSWC Crane is closing in fast with the Miniature Day/Night Sight program to upgrade capabilities beyond the current hodgepodge of clamp-ons.
• The Coast Guard – and probably Navy Mobile Security – will be getting a reduced range 7.62mm round, developed by ARDEC, with standard velocity and penetration at moderate distance, but quick fall off after that to minimize collateral damage in crowded ports and narrow waterways.
• Remotely aimed weapon systems for a variety of platforms continue to gain favor. The robo turret on STRYKER vehicles will probably be the first to get General Dynamics’ XM307.
• USSOCOM’s MK47 Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher is on a parallel track with “Big Army’s” XM312/XM307.
• Knight’s is a big winner with the Army’s recent selection of their modified SR-25/MK 11 as the M110 SASS (Semiautomatic Sniper System).
• Countersniper technologies are getting lots of attention, but existing solutions tend to be complex and expensive. M2 Technologies and the Univ. of Kentucky have partnered to develop an infrared system using COTS components.
• ARDEC has a Rapid Design branch for urgent projects like the Afghan National Army’s need to mount their Russian-type DShK machine guns on American-supplied M113 APCs.
• Along with continued development of Barrett’s 25mm XM109, FN has a shoulder-fired high velocity 40mm launcher in JSSAP’s efforts to enhance anti-materiel capabilities.
• Everybody but the Coast Guard (they have the new SIG P229 in .40 caliber) wants a .45 ACP pistol. SOCOM and Big Army are, once again, conducting separate programs to this common goal.

Go online to get briefings for all of these topics and much more at www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/2006smallarms.html

It’s a Small World

Once again this year the Awards Luncheon was enhanced immeasurably by a thoughtful presentation from JSSAP’s Dr. Stephen Small, who can always be counted upon to put current trials and tribulations into historical perspective. This time reaching back to 1326 A.D. and the dawn of gunpowder warfare, his “First Three Hundred Years of Small Arms” had an appreciative audience alternately chuckling and shaking their heads in recognition. Was some distant ancestor of Ronnie Barrett responsible for the 41 pound, carriage mounted, 27mm wheel lock “anti-materiel rifle” developed in Germany so long ago?

Small was honored immediately afterward with an NDIA Professional Service Award, as were Simunition’s Brian Berger, Aberdeen Test Center’s Marvin Maule, Broden Resources’ Dave Broden, and USMC Lieutenant Colonel Richard Adams.

This year’s George M. Chinn award was presented to Richard Swan of A.R.M.S. and the Carlos Hathcock award went to USMC Major Allen Bootby.

Hardware Show

Numerous breaks from scholarly proceedings in the auditorium gave attendees welcome opportunity to visit the large exhibit hall where more than sixty commercial firms and government entities showed their wares. There, many of the concepts and much of the hardware from dry technical papers could be found, along with knowledgeable reps to answer questions and discuss advantages that come with items on display.

ARDEC, JSSAP and Program Manager Small Arms held the biggest section of exhibit booths, a necessary and fitting situation for this giant of the military small arms community. We spoke at some length with engineers and others directly responsible for weapons and ammunition under development as well as those seeking and fielding COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) items to meet immediate needs of troops in harm’s way. From high tech “smart” weapons to Otis cleaning kits, this is the team that gets the good stuff for the good guys.

Several of JSSAP’s industry partners also had a large presence. General Dynamics was on hand with their convertible XM307 to XM312 Advanced Crew Served Weapon. AAI showed its concept mockup of the future light machine gun and its innovative cartridges. ATK had the amazing programmable airbursting ammo for the XM307 and the shoulder-fired XM25.

Long Mountain Outfitters and Defense Munitions combined their considerable assets to provide a billboard-sized display of old and new weapons from around the world, providing an engineering, reference and sales resource for the widest range of attendees. Suppressed pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, belt guns, grenade chunkers, and antitank rockets snared enthusiasts of all types, sparking innumerable technical discussions and historical anecdotes with this walk-up-and-touch product catalog.

Other real gun guys were also much in evidence including ArmaLite, Barrett, Beretta, Colt, FN, Glock, HK, Knight’s, Remington, S&W, and Taurus.

Barrett is working with JSSAP to lighten the .50 cal M107 and to get the 25mm XM109 ready for fielding. Then there’s the exciting new bullpup XM500 in .416 caliber.

Colt Defense was showing a push-rod M16 called the Advanced Law Enforcement Carbine and a side-opening grenade launcher. Both were apparently developed as entries in recent Army and SOCOM trials. A prototype light machine gun also attracted interest, featuring quick change barrel, open and closed bolt operation, and a push-rod.

FNH USA proudly displayed several new variants of USSOCOM’s tough SCAR (Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle) including a 5.56mm version for sharpshooting, a SCAR Heavy in 7.62mm, and the clever left or right side opening Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module.

HK Defense, after fielding the push-rod HK416 in 5.56mm, has just added the 7.62mm HK417. Also on the table was the handy and hardy MG4, a 5.56mm SAW/LMG.

Knight’s has plenty of reason to crow with the Army’s recent selection of its candidate as the new M110 Semiautomatic Sniper Rifle System, but something much smaller took center stage at their booth. Weighing just 4.5 pounds and measuring only 19.5 inches with stock folded, the brand new 6x35mm PDW (Personal Defense Weapon) was a show stopper for those in the know. The unique high-performance ammo and its diminutive launch platform were developed with requirements and funding from Technical Support Working Group, a little known US Government counter-terrorism organization with direct links to the CIA, FBI and more than seventy other agencies.

Optimizing existing guns and ammo is the job of those who specialize in accessories and add-ons. Specific needs are met mostly by entrepreneurs with companies outside “the system” but well known in the tightly knit world of combat soldiers.

Some precision shooters from CENTCOM’s area of operations asked LaRue Tactical for a special mounting system and soon got the “S.T.O.M.P.” The Sniper’s Total Optic Mounting Package for Remington 700 actions consists of a suitable length of Picatinny Rail, quick-detach rings and inserts, and a quick-detach overarm for positioning night vision optics like the PVS-22 in front and in line with whatever day optic is preferred.

In the same vein, urban warrior shotgunners punished by the heavy recoil of slugs and breaching rounds asked for and got a special buffer from Enidine. The unit we saw was the “ShotShock,” neatly housed in the telescoping tubular stock with grip that Mesa Tactical makes for the Remington 870.

De-ranged

For whatever reason, L3’s Sal Fanelli keeps volunteering to coordinate and conduct the Small Arms Symposium’s traditional government and industry live fire demonstrations. Never an easy task under the best conditions, but heartened that this time wasn’t in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey; Fanelli got everything set up with the Department of Energy’s Central Training Academy to use their superb range facilities on nearby Kirtland Air Force Base.

This became a no-go a few days before the event when those in charge of base entry security clearances realized that busloads of civilians including plenty of foreign attendees would be rolling up. An official case of the vapors ensued, leaving Sal scrambling to find another venue.

Fortunately the good-guy network kicked in and the Albuquerque Police Department cleared its scheduled training to make way for the day’s demos, apparently recognizing that real “national security” should take priority over bureaucratic BS. A big thanks to APD and Range Master Dave Bartram!

Crossed SWORDS

We got out there early on range day to have plenty of time to examine and photograph the weapons and ammo that would be in action later on. This paid off handsomely when the Army’s SWORDS team arrived with two of their mean little battle ‘bots. As ARDEC’s Mike Zecca, along with his team from Foster-Miller, went about their preparations, we watched closely, took pictures and asked a few questions.

Zecca’s planned demonstration, he said, would show how the armed mini-crawler was radio remote controlled by an operator using video link to navigate, acquire targets and then take them out with bursts of machine gun fire.

The first order of business was to swap out the demilled display gun for a real M240, a process that takes only a few minutes when the right tools are on hand. Then, with Deguire at the hardened laptop style computerized OCU (operator control unit), the battery powered rock ‘n roll robot cruised around a few obstacles and pulled up on the firing line. It was time for some test firing so the range went “hot” and a belt of 7.62mm ball got loaded in the 240.

Peering intently at crosshatches on the display screen, Deguire did some fine tuning with the aiming joystick then flipped up the red firing safety cover. The M240 roared to life with the first burst hitting high. Additional fine finger pressure sent a movement signal by radio link and the muzzle lowered almost imperceptibly. The next burst was right on target and a series of quick traverse signals moved the muzzle leftward to quickly engage each silhouette in turn. Satisfied with its practice run, the team powered down SWORDS in place and manually cleared its machine gun.

Most everyone is aware of the cruel truth of “Murphy’s Law” which states, “Anything that can go wrong will, and at the worst possible time.” Keep this in mind as we jump ahead a couple of hours and pick up the story when it was SWORDS’ turn for a live fire demo in front of a crowd including some of the most influential persons in the world of infantry weaponry.

In an unfortunate incident that may have taken its place ahead of all such others in the lore of NDIA Small Arms Demonstrations, the armed robot violated the most basic range safety rule. Our narrative continues with a statement from the Army’s official after action review, presented verbatim:

“SWORDS #5 was equipped with a M240B Machine Gun and flawlessly test fired on the range prior to the opening of the event. At the time that SWORDS was to start its demo, the vehicle started backing up in a counterclockwise arc without any input from the operator. At this time the weapon had loaded ammo but the safety was on, none of the redundant arming steps had been initiated, and because the robot was moving, no firing signals could be accepted (SWORDS cannot fire on the move) by the fire control. The robot was powered down and cleared. No one was injured. An immediate formal investigation of SWORDS #5 revealed that one wire in the operator control unit had broken and was causing a rearward command string to be sent to the tracks. The wiring has now been redesigned to reduce the chance of broken wires and to add wiring redundancy so that these wires have a backup signal.”

(Editor’s Note: Robert Bruce’s in-depth report on SWORDS may be found in SAR’s Vol. 8, No. 5, September 2005 issue.)

Blastin’ With the Big Boys

The ill-fated SWORDS demo took place on the APD range’s rifle lane, a facility that allows even .50 caliber BMGs to be fired safely when reasonable care is taken. Defense Munitions kicked off the firepower show with John Browning’s masterpiece, in this case a new Ohio Ordnance M2HB on the light and versatile Vinghog 12.7 soft mount with the Vingfoot high-low tripod. This was followed by some serious double tapping from LMO’s twin M240 right/left mount that gives over 1500 rpm of 7.62x51mm firepower with superb accuracy.

Then, US Ordnance showed some sustained Sixty shooting with long bursts from their M60E4/MK43, an improved version of a long time favorite of the Navy SEALs.

Others took a turn in demonstrating their wares which included several suppressors. SRT Arms has the Typhoon can for the M4 that quick couples to standard GI birdcages, and Surefire has a nice new addition to its Fast Attach High Endurance line with one for the M249 SAW. Knight’s Dave Lutz showed the dramatic reduction in signature that comes when the M110’s suppressor is in place.

Lewis Machine has a unique recoil compensator and flash suppressor that looks akin to a SKOL can welded under the barrel but is said to significantly reduce muzzle rise and signature. Karl Lewis also showed the easy one minute conversion on his special upper from 5.56mm to 6.8 by swapping out the bolt, barrel and magazine.

The last demo on the big range was a seriously long belt of Simunition’s new 7.62mm “ShortStop” reduced range training ammo, spectacularly sprayed from an M134 Minigun positioned atop an armored car. This rig was thoughtfully provided by the Department of Energy from those now in use by Nuclear Facility Security teams.

PDWs, Pistols, Pumps, Pistons, and Pumice

Live fire action moved a couple ranges over to the pistol lanes where some other interesting weapons awaited.

Earlier that morning we had gotten our hands on Knight’s 6mm PDW, including the chance to handle and strip it. Confidence must be kept but it is permissible to say that lead engineer Doug Olsen’s mechanical action is strongly influenced by a certain designer named Kalashnikov. We also got to fire a mag in semi and full, confirming the controllability and quick handling of this clever weapon/cartridge combo. SAR looks forward to the chance to do an in-depth feature in the near future.

Taurus fired its prototype .45 ACP that is intended for the upcoming military trials, and then Glock went one by one through a table full of their variants including the ever-popular Glock 18 full auto model.

Ammo guru Whit Engel wowed the crowd with a spectacular watermelon-busting shot. Designed for breaching with minimal overpenetration, his 12 gauge hollow point “Entry Frangible Safety Slug” pulverized the hapless melon without even denting the cardboard witness plate two feet behind it.

Colt’s team put the piston-powered Advanced Law Enforcement Carbine through its paces, shooting mag after mag in quick order without incident. This was a tough act to follow for the next presenter, intending to demonstrate the effectiveness of his proprietary metal finish formula and process. Common courtesy dictates that he will not be identified here. “It eliminates the need for lubrication,” he said, pouring handfuls of APD range sand down the barrel and into the receiver of an M16 type rifle just before firing. Painfully, one pop was all he got and no amount of pulling on the charging handle would help. Damn that Murphy…

Once the last round had been fired in formal demonstrations the line opened up for event attendees to come forward and put a few rounds downrange. Sadly, the Minigun had left the range.

National Defense Industrial Association’s Small Arms Systems Division

Small Arms Review strongly supports the work of NDIA. Make plans now to be at the 2007 Small Arms event in Virginia Beach, Virginia, 7 to 10 May. For membership categories and other information contact:

National Defense Industrial Association
“Strength Through Industry and
Technology”
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
www.ndia.org