M60E4s not for SOCOM

On Monday I noted that the Special Forces were getting some of the new M60E4 “Commando” machine guns. I was wrong. I misread the DID post that I linked to. DID didn’t report who the weapons were for.

But a reader, Daniel E. Watters of The Gun Zone, slapped me upside the head and pointed out that even a glance at the contract revealed that they’re bound for:

SHIP TO : FREIGHT ADDRESS

MARK FOR: COLOMBIAN MARINES
ATTN SECURITY ASSISTANCE OFFICE
PH 571-266-1225 OR 1224
BOGOTA COLOMBIA

Not quite the US Special Operations Command, is it?

Thanks greatly for the tip, Daniel. And my apologies to my readers for not digging more deeply.

Comments

  1. Damnit Murdoc! I invested my entire worldly savings ($37.32) in US Ordnance based on your bogus tip about a new contract for M60E4s for the Spec Ops guys. Now I find out the guns are really going overseas to some place as likely to pay for’em in coffee (or worse) as in cash! I am NEVER taking financial advice from this site again! Not only that…………I’m gonna have to get a JOB now to build up another retirement! LOL! Seriously……I’ve often wondered why none of our Armed Forces have acquired the M60E4. AFter watching the sustained fire demo of it (over at Armed Forces Journal in their Blackwater 2004 section, and reading the testimonials to it by the Spec Ops testers at BW, it really seems like a fine weapon system for any outfit wanting a world class GPMG.

  2. >>’some place as likely to pay for’em in coffee (or worse) as in cash! ‘<< PAY for them? You're a lot more optimistic than I am...

  3. Murdoc, Are you casting aspersions on our government’s ethics? They don’t give away weapons to foreign countries; It’s called ‘lend-lease’ (we lend the weapons and they get the debt forgiven by Bono and Bob Geldorf) Invented by a dumbocrat by the name of Roosevelt, Franklin D.

  4. Flanker, Re: Why not M60E4? Have you seen the Mk46 and Mk48 machine guns? One’s a lighter M249. The other’s a lighter M249 chambered for 7.62mm.

  5. NO argment for me on the Mark 48……..not so sure about the other one though. The 249 frame was built for a medium caliber round, I’d have some reservations about how well it would hold up to sustained use of 7.62 x 51. It might be fine……I just haven’t read any reviews or critiques on it, or talked to anyone who’s had actual experience with it. For ‘sustained’ fire in a system chambered for 7.62 x 51, with a high degreee of reliability, and optical sight capability; I’m still surprised none of our military units (that I’m aware of) have tested or adopted the M60E4.

  6. First of all, great catch, Murdoc. I’ve updated the DID post on the M60A4s, with credit and a link. It will run tomorrow. If you find stuff like this in future, by all means please tell me. Flanker, I suspect there’s a strong ‘standardization’ argument at work against the M60A4. I can see real benefits in the field from having everyone on 5.56mm, but that isn’t the be-all and end-all. Personally, I think it’s too bad the US Army doesn’t field the excellent, very lightweight (13.6 pounds with loaded 100 rds mag and sling) and highly accurate and controllable Ultimax 100. But the M249 won the contract back in the 1980s, and given the investments involved American soldiers are probably stuck with it for another generation. Too bad.