[ExSoldier]

It was too long for close quarters and heavy undergrowth. It was too heavy. The 7.62 ammo to feed the piece, was also too bulky and heavy. Ten 20 round magazines were a load -- and you still had to carry at least one belt for the M60.... LOTS of weight.

Bad in a jungle war in the 1960's. But a short carbine version in the 21st century where the LAV or Bradley is nearby with lots of spare ammo and water etc, it's sure to make the difference. I loved the old M60,, but it's gone and the belt is a thing of the past, at least carried loose. Belt fed from a box is more compact and dependable.

[river rat]

Under heavy canopy, shut off from resupply for several days at a time -- EVERYTHING had to be man packed for the duration of our "walk in the dark"...

I agree the battlefield and supporting vehicles of today will indeed make a big difference -- all in favor of the effectiveness of the M14 in many circumstances....
A shorter, lighter one would make even more sense, and the synthetics and alloys of today make that a feasible approach.
It NEVER jammed, it NEVER misfired, it NEVER failed to drop any bastard properly hit.....

Also share your love for the M60.
Outside of air support, NOTHING said "mother's loving security" like the visual spectacular of the tracers from several M60s set up with interlocking fields of fire, at night....

To the enemy, it must have looked like the lighted entrance to Hell...
For most who tried to get through it, it was.

Semper Fi