![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire bullets in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine, typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute. The first design/invention of the machine gun was by Leonardo Da Vinci, presenting a design of an eight barreled machine gun that was operated manually by a bandcrank, and was mounted onto the ground, and barely portable. However, the more modern machine gun was designed by Samborino and Jordanian, two extremely active troublemakers."
Citation needed?
Perhaps I'm being paranoid but the bold text sounds biased to me with the use of the word "troublemakers".
Jimothy 183 ( talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over the article, and everything is fine except for one thing. Metal Storm weapons and miniguns are notable "rapid fire" weapons, but are not really true machine guns unless powered by the byproduct of their projectile (and they're not). So on the "Future" section near the bottom that mentions Metal Storm and the minigun, should I delete this section, or should I leave it and just modify the contents?
Because I hate to break it to you, but neither of those weapon systems are machine guns.
not sure about the metal storm as it kinda defies modern conventional firearms design, assuming you are referring to the M134 Minigun, it is absolutely 100% classified as a machine gun as it is automatically driven by a electric motor. you may be mistaking it for the Gatling gun, which cannot be classified as a machine gun because it is manually hand cranked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.44.21 ( talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, sombody changed in the operating principals section, the thing about when squirt guns were first used, and the random quote about peeing on a statue is illegal, i really hate poeple like that, i couldnt figure out how to change it back, kinda new here, but just a heads up to anybody who knows how to do this. it just didnt look right to me. Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.60.228 ( talk) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The most popular feature of machine guns and similiar weapons is their speed... Why the speed is nto specifically addressed anywhere? I mean, with data like "fire X bullets per sec" or something like that. 200.106.40.22 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That isnt to true as most machine guns have arouind the same rate of fire exept for a couple the major difffernces you see are mostly in video games. The most important thing is really
If you think about any machine gun will keep a solider down in cover.( ForeverDEAD 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UT
"most machine guns have around the same rate of fire"?! Definately not true. Let's take a look at some well known ROF stats. A Mac 10 (or Mac 11) has a fire rate of over 1200 RPM (rounds per minute), or 20 rounds per second. Likewise, the venerable M2 machine gun has a relatively sluggish ROF of about 500 RPM, or about 8-9 rounds per second (I'm not doing the math). And even if you claim that the Mac 10 is a "submachine gun", there are plenty of very fast fully-fledged machine guns. Look at the M16 page or the P90 page, which technically IS a machine gun, because it uses rifle bullets.
Also, video games typically recreate ROF to a certain degree; if the gun fires too fast, they modify it so that it is more gamer friendly.
Lastly, though any weapon will suppress, 99% of the time it is better to kill your enemy than suppress him if you can, which means a more accurate machinegun=better.
P.S. To the first commenter, the Wiki pages do tell you the rate of fire. It's called either RPM or cyclic rate, and you need to divide the number by 60 to get the number of rounds per second. Eiffel56 ( talk) 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
SEWalk, I think you might be missing the point "speedguy" is trying to make - he's talking about functional differences between MGs, not legality. Rate of fire is important, and it does vary. If the magazine-fed Bren light mg had been designed with the same 1200rpm cyclic rate of the belt-fed MG 42, it would have been useless. Modern SAWs have similar rates of fire, but SAWs are only one of many types of machineguns, adapted to one of many purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.218 ( talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Are all automatic weapons considered machine guns?
True, but machine guns do not always have to be belt fed. Eiffel56 ( talk) 05:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Should applicattion be a factor when classifying these things? By your definition an M249 SAW (Belt fed or high capacity magazine) is called a Squad Automatic Weapon because it is used as a support for a unit of troops at squad size, instead of a Light machine gun which would be used to cover a larger group from a fixed position or vehicle mounted. This principle could solve some issues with regards to what qualifies as an assault rifle also, as it is a rifle that combines semi or full automatic fire, stopping power and mobility in an assault situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.75.4 ( talk) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This consensus is at odds with what the article current states, which is that A machine gun is any weapon capable of firing more than one projectile with one action of the trigger, which clearly includes automatic rifles, submachine guns, automatic shotguns, etc. Wootery ( talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Crediting da Vinci with the invention seems incorrect, his design could only fire 6 rounds before needing to be reloaded and was functionally more similar to already extant Organ_gun then to the true machine guns of Maxim and Gatling.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.85.232 ( talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone actually know what the effects/consequences are of an overheated gun? That'd be a great addition either here, or somewhere... I'm primarily interested in the technical specifics. I imagine barrel warping occurs, but what actually stops you from firing anyway? Having no idea on the subject, I imagine things start melting? -- Moogleii 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
* Accelerated wear of the bore. * Expansion of the barrel leading to loss in bullet velocity and finally to tumbling of the projectile. * Stoppage of gun caused by the expanded barrel seizing in the trunnion block or flash suppressor. * . Ignition (cook-off) of the propelling charge by the heat of the barrel.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m296.htm
Yeah, you don't want to overheat your barrel or your ammo box, as there have been reports of the entire magazine shooting off without control, which only makes it hotter... Also, the above user is right. GoogleVid the clip where some guy shoots thousands of rounds through his AK-47 and look at how innaccurate his gun is.
Describe the new page here. The following was the content of the Machine-guns page, which is improperly pluralized and less descriptive than Machine Gun:
These weapons have changed the tactics of warfare. They are mechanisms for spraying bullets onto an area of ground, enabling one, two or three man teams to provide the same fire power as a whole platoon. The standard weapon of the Wehrmacht was not the rifle but the machine-gun.
Known patterns of MG: General Purpose Machine Gun/ GPMG Squad Assault Weapon/ SAW Browning 50 caliber MG42 Bren gun ...others...
While the Wehrmacht had terrific light machine guns, it still wasn't the standard weapon. -- Belltower
The article says: Many of the M2 .50Cal machine guns are so accurate that they can actually be used to snipe targets at great distances, although the morality of this practice has been questioned.
I'm unqualified to confirm or disconfirm this, but it sounds odd to me. Why would this morality of this practice (in a wartime context, of course, sniping is surely immoral at other times) be questioned? By whom?
please look here: http://styrheim.weblogg.no/100204222411_the_legality_of_125mm_multipurpo.html
Does anybody know anything about Hiram Maxim? I think he invented the first effective MG but I'm not sure.
A few points:
Regarding morality...questioned: There exists a military "urban legend" that it is unlawful under the Laws of Armed Conflict to deliberately target personnel with .50 cal weapons. It is untrue.
GPMG is not a specific weapon, but a class of machine guns designed to be used as either LMG or MMG.
Hiram Maxim was pretty famous in the nineteenth century, and invented heaps of stuff as well as the first self-powered machine gun, including the firearm silencer, improved light bulbs and an early airplane.
A few other well known MGs apart from those listed above include:
The article should mention that in military usage, "machine gun" does not include assault rifles or submachine guns, and that such usage by journalists is very annoying to soldiers 8^) --Roger 13 Aug 2003
Can anyone conifrm what I've read about the development of the .50 M1917? I've read it originated when Pres Roosevelt's son (Lt. Elliot?) fired a .30 that was unable to penetrate Ger a/c armor, & was KIA as a result. Trekphiler 01:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"Ah, yes. My apologies. It turns out to be a common myth; there is indeed no problem with them under the Geneva conventions, and some armies do teach snipers that this is a reasonable use. (The myth goes on to claim, colorfully, that the USMC teaches snipers that aiming at personnel is verboten but aiming at equipment is okay - and dog tags, helmets, and uniforms qualify as equipment. Cute but counterfactual.) In my defense, it was a member of the Canadian Forces that told me so, and I had the sense to look it up before putting it on any page. --" Andrew 20:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
My cousin recently competled basic traingin or whatever and he told me that his drill instructor told him that but i dont no about any others though( ForeverDEAD 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
Modusponens ( talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC) The stuff about California laws and the term "assault rifle" doesn't seem neutral to me - it looks like it's trying to make a political point about gun laws.
Does anyone have backup material for the comment: A newer intuitive aiming system, favored by the Israelis is to alternate solid and tracer rounds, so shooters can walk the fire into the target. I have heard about this going back to WWII, as well as in many armies, not just Israel. Any opinions on modifiying it? User:Magicmike
Aimed fire is preferable to "walking fire" using tracers, especially in ground mounted machineguns. The use of tracers in daylight, and especially during darkness tends to advertise the position of the firer, and tends to cause the firer to become an intense bullet magnet. The optics available on Armored Fighting vehicles are typically efficient enough that the tracer becomes unecessary. Since most American .30 tracers burn out at around 900 meters, it is often useful to the tank crew to range with tracer ammunition. Some vehicles, and uses like the Bradley Port Weapons do lend themselves to walking fire.
James Baker USA (ret)
The introduction states that: "Such automatic weapons with a caliber of 20 mm or larger are generally referred to as autocannons."
while the overview states: "A fully-automatic firearm with a bullet caliber of more than 12.7mm (0.5 inch) is called an automatic cannon"
I have no idea - which is correct?
The article currently claims that heavy machine guns can be used for sniping. I find this hard to believe (but have no evidence contrdicting it). Perhaps it is confusing them with .50 caliber anti-materiel sniper rifles? -- Andrew 17:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
No, Carlos Hathcock made a special mounting bracket for an M2 machine gun, and managed to set a world record for longest kill. However, just recently, some Canadian (I'm not going to look him up; he's in wikipedia, so find him yourself) just set the new record with a .50 caliber anti-material rifle, so both options are viable.
Regarding sniping with the M2: I have been told by a living, published, Marine historian that the M2 was used as a sniper weapon in Korea in the days before the Chinese intervention. The 1st Marine Division was deployed in the mountainous terrain of North Korea, ostensibly mopping up the remains of the North Korean Army, although finding many indications of Chinese presence. Enemy personnel were often seen at extreme range, e.g. on the hillsides across valleys, as were caves, bunkers, huts, etc. These were sometimes engaged by single .50 rounds from tripod mounted guns. The practice was to take a ranging shots at the door, trail, cave, etc., until the target was registered, then wait for the opposition to show himself. I have no reports of a success ratio with this technique. As any mountain goat or sheep hunter will attest, a lot can happen to a bullet as it crosses a valley, and GI ammunition was certainly not National Match. My information comes from a good primary source, a company grade officer who was at the end of the road at Yudam-ni and was still walking when the regiment the sea. Seattle Jan 11, 2006
There is a lot of it in this article especially in the History section. Here are some specifics:
Some weapons, such as the AR-15/M16, integrate the piston with the bolt. Others, such as the M15 and AK patterns, attach the piston to a bolt carrier that unlocks and operates the bolt.
The M16 does not have a piston, it operates on the principle of direct gas impingement. Gas is tapped off the barrel and directed back onto the bolt to force it open and cycle the action. The M16 also does have a bolt carrier. A better way to break assault rifles down is probably when they have operating rods (op rods) like the AKs or FAL or not like the HK G3 or M16.
Submachine guns (e.g. the Thompson submachine gun, or 'Tommy gun') as well as lighter machine guns (the BAR for example) saw their first major use in WW1 along with heavy use of large-caliber machine guns.
The Thompson was designed for WWI but the war ended before they saw service. A better example of a WWI submachine gun would be the Sten. Also most heavy machine guns used in WWI were .30 caliber, the same as the BAR. Perhaps this should be altered to "the extensive use of heavy machine guns" which would be more factually correct and maintain the distinction the original author seemed to be trying for.
Design features of machine guns were applied to automatic handguns, "machine pistols", such as the Luger (although these did not yet have full automatic fire).
The Mauser Broomhandle would be a better choice here. While it wasn't it wasn't full-auto either, it at least had a detachable stock.
During the inter-war years, many new designs were developed, such as the Browning 50-caliber, in 1933, which, along with the others were used in World War II.
This sentence is a grammatical trainwreck. Historically, the Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun was designed at the end of WWI and began service in the late 1910s or early 1920s, not 1933. A better example of an inter-war design might be the Bren or one of the early German MG series guns.
I altered the "MG & wire led to stalemate" piece. I've heard air recce was responsible, by making hidden movement impossible. Given that, and the power of QF arty like the M1897 75mm, I'd say attributing it to MG is a bit strong. --squadfifteen, 23/11/05
Does the Villar Perosa merit a mention? The SMG article lists it, but I've read it was tactically an LMG, despite using a 9mm pistol round (& the SMG article lists it as an a/c weapon). --squadfifteen, 23/11/05
"A better example of a WWI submachine gun would be the Sten"
The Sten is a WW2 era weapon that didn't exist until the 1940s.
Changed Multi-shot "guns" to "weapons" in history judging that guns did not exist back in the 1st century.
The article seems to imply that all closed bolt guns are positively locked. Many are not. An example would be closed bolt versions of the UZI.
Next, the description of the typical cartrige ejection system attributes the function of two separate pieces, the extractor and the ejector, to one piece who's description makes little sense.
Not having edited before, I figure I'll wait for comments before making a change. --ming 68.99.181.114 06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the info contained in the introduction (which looks more like a whole article itself) is basically duplicated info from the more detailed sections down below. The introduction shouldn't be too long, and it shouldn't contain so much specific information, especially when all the same information is already in the article with better writing. The article also needs reordering of the sections. -- Squalla 20:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The article states a precursor for LDV's original machine gun design
"Multi-shot guns have a long development, going as far back to the 1st century, with plans for a multi-shot arrow gun by Greek engineer Hero of Alexandria."
but neglects to mention the Chu-Ko-Nu repeating crossbow which was a machine gun for arrows of sorts. -- ColourBurst 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Say, are there articles where there is a place to put this image Image:Shanghai1937KMT machine gun nest.jpg? It's quite a distinctive picture, as I have not seen the likes of it before (as compared to say, trench warfare or a person lying prone) ... was looking on an article desribing defensive tactics where this would be useful. It does say a lot about the often heard, "a machine gun nest! Quick, throw a grenade!" type of scenario, or that nest one can't seem to be able to identify accurately. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"To this end, most light machine guns and general purpose machine guns are not designed for high accuracy, as would be expected of a rifle. Most are designed with a small degree of inaccuracy, referred to as the "cone of fire", because the rounds spread out as they travel towards the target area, rather like the spread of a shotgun, but continuous."
I find this to be a dubious claim. By what mechanism does the author suggest that machine guns are deliberately made inaccurate to increase their cone of fire? And for that matter, you have a "cone of fire" for automatic weapons designed to be accurate - it's inherent to rapid fire.
In order to deliberately make a gun less accurate, you would have to introduce a mechanism, or loosen the tolerances to the point of creating inaccuracy. Could someone provide evidence that these factors are considered and even encouraged in machine gun design?
A distinction should be made between single-shot accuracy and a cone of fire created by recoil. Machine guns are typically more accurate than their rifle counterparts, and, for that matter, have a smaller cone of fire and are less affected by recoil. But in either case, you're talking about two seperate things. SenorBeef 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction, it states:
The first machine gun was constructed in Britain, 1913, 2 months before the first world war. It was designed several hundred years prior by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Later, the article says:
The first true machine gun was invented in 1881 by Hiram Maxim.
I believe the latter is accurate, the former makes no sense, and is grammatically poor. Boomcoach 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is very good, and I did not want to step on the current editors. Excellent article. Boomcoach 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
hai i am NIRMAL, can u say the mechanim of guns```````` and how does the maxium forse occurs inside the gun and that it pushes the bullet outside ......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.153.215 ( talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
On 17 July, I added a description of the Washington D.C. definition of machine gun to an existing description of the US legal definition in the introduction. This description was removed by an unregistered user who described it as specious (description was accurate and did not attempt to overstate the case, listing info from D.C press releases and news articles about the case) and as not germain [sic] to a generalized discussion.
The first point baffles me. The details were all verifiable. Google's cache has expired, but the initial press release by the mayor's office was shown by the Google cache to have been modified, lending confusion to the District's definition. However, I have been able to locate a copy of the original press release with the wording about machine guns at the D.C Office of Secretary's site. Obviously, the wording should be changed to recognize this more reliable source instead of the expired Google cache, but this does not change any facts presented in the addition to this article.
The second point is also unsupported. As is already demonstrated in the article's inclusion of a legal definition of machine gun, the legal definition is fundamental to categorizing weapons since restrictions are based on such definitions. When D.C. defines machine guns in contradiction to U.S law, it has legal ramifications for gun owners. Information about such contradictions is part of the discussion of machine guns and should be freely available. Such information should probably not belong in the introduction, however. I would like to hear suggestions on creating a new section or adding the D.C. information to an existing section. Kylos h ( talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph seems to contradict its self since it defines a machine gun as " fully-automatic" and then goes on to say that non-automatic "manually operated, for example, by turning a hand crank" guns were "machine guns". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For the last time, for all those who read this, a Gatling gun is NOT a machine gun. Would someone please fix that in this article?!?! Because I know that would take a while. Because, by definition, a machine gun has to be "FULLY" automatic, and by using a hand crank or even a motor, the Gatling requires movement from the operator or motor for EACH shot, as opposed to only once. Come on, people, can't you tell a contradictory sentence when you see one? Eiffel56 ( talk) 06:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Rifle-calibre ammunition isn't right either - that would rule out .50 cal. And isn't a sub-machine gun a category of machine gun? I don't recall Machine Gun Kelly using a tripod. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"A model of a typical entrenched German machine gunner in World War I. He is operating an MG08, wearing a Stahlhelm and cuirass to protect him from shell fragments, and protected by rows of barbed wire and sandbags." This is misleading, the cuirass was meant to protect primarily against bullets afaik. Lastdingo ( talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
At the begginning of the article, the date for the maxim gun is 1884, and in the middle of the article it is 1881. 75.105.246.92 ( talk) 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
M134 and GAU-2/A 'Minigun' Gatling machine gun (USA)
General Electric M134 Minigun machine gun of Vietnam war (late 1960s) era, on pedestal mount.
Dillon Aero M134D Minigun of current manufacture, with manual control unit and feed chute.
Image: Dillon Aero
M134D Minigun of current manufacture, mounted on the roof of the military car.
Image: Dillon Aero
M134D Minigun of current manufacture, on Naval pedestal mount, with ammunition container.
Image: Dillon Aero
M134 Minigun on infantry type tripod, as often seen on civilian entertainment events such as Knob Creek machine gun shot in USA.
Data for M134D Minigun
Caliber 7.62x51 NATO Weight 24...30 kg gun with motor and feeder/delinker, less ammunition container and power source Length 801 mm Barrel length 559 mm Feed belt in 1500, 3000 or 4500 round containers Rate of fire 3000 or 4000 rounds per minute, fixed
The development of a rifle-caliber, externally powered Gatling type machine gun was commenced by weapons branch of the US-based General Electric Corporation in 1960, following the successful development and fielding of the 20mm M61 Vulcan automatic gun (used in aircraft and AA applications). First prototypes of the 7.62mm Gatling-type machine gun were fired in 1962, and in late 1964 first 7.62mm machine guns, dubbed 'the Minigun', were mounted on AC-47 Gunship aircraft for combat trials. Following the definitive success of the first 'Gunship' aircrafts armed with Miniguns, GE commenced mass production of the new weapon, officially adopted by US Army as M134 Minigun and by US Air Forces as GAU-2/A machine gun. By 1971 more than 10,000 Miniguns were produced and delivered to US Armed forces. Most were used in airborne applications, installed in a variety of side- or forward-firing mountings aboard aircrafts and helicopters (AH-1 Cobra, UH-1 Huey, HH-53 Green Giant and others). Some Miniguns also were installed on riverine crafts, used by US Navy and Special forces in Vietnam.Thanks to its sustained-fire capability and high rate of fire, Minigun weapons provided excellent suppressive and area denial capabilities. It must be noted, however, that infantry applications of the Miniguns were very limited due to the weight of the system and its requirement for external electric power. In most cases, Minigun machine guns were (and still are) mounted on high mobility vehicles as anti-ambush weapons. In recent times, production of the 7.62mm Miniguns was resumed by US-based company Dillon Aero, which is now manufacturing an improved version of the basic design, known as M134D. It has many upgrades in detail, resulting in decreased weight of the system (especially when using titanium gun body), improved reliability and better handling and maintenance. The M134D machine gun is used on board of many military helicopters (such as MH-6 or UH-60), as well as on HMMMV trucks and naval crafts (to provide close-in defense against small, fast-moving vessels such as suicide-bomber motorboats). It must be noted that M134 miniguns are very rarely used for infantry applications; photos of M134 installed on standard light tripods are almost universally from some 'Civilian' events such as Knob Creek shot in USA, where people can fire a number of legally owned full automatic weapons just for fun. Military has no place for a 30-kg weapon (less mount and batteries) with extremely high ammunition consumption rate in a 'man-portable' class of small arms. Prospects of using M134 in 'Hollywood-style' are even less realistic, not only because of aforementioned properties (heavy weight and unnecessarily high rate of fire) but also due to the extremely high recoil force - at just 3,000 rounds per minute the Dillon Aero M134D minigun generates average recoil force of 150 lbs / 67.5 kg, with peak recoil reaching 300 lbs / 135 kg. The M134 Minigun is an externally operated weapon which uses electrical motor drive to operate its action. Typical power requirements for 3,000 rounds per minute (50 rounds/second) rate of fire are 24-28 V DC, 58 Amp (~1.5 KWt); with increase of rate of fire power requirements rise accordingly. The gun operates on Gatling principle, that is it employs a rotary cluster of six barrels, each with its own bolt group. Bolts are moved back and forth behind each barrel as their operating roller passes an internal curved track machined inside the receiver cover. Typically, the topmost barrel in the cluster has its bolt fully open and the bottom barrel in cluster has its bolt fully closed, locked and firing pin released to fire the loaded cartridge. Barrel locking is achieved by the rotary bolt head. Since the gun operates on external power, it is immune to dud / misfired rounds, which are ejected during the normal cycle of operation. Feed is provided either by linkless chute or by the linked ammunition, In the latter case, a powered feeder/delinker module is installed on the gun; it receives necessary power through the gear from the gun motor. To properly operate the gun, it is fitted with electronics control box, which, in the case of manually controlled installation, has an 'master arm' switch and fire controls (triggers). Typical feed arrangement uses a large container holding some 1,500 (full weight ~ 125 lbs / 58 kg) to 4,500(full weight ~ 295 lbs / 134 kg) rounds, with maximum capacity reaching well over 10,000 rounds per gun in certain heavy helicopter installations (such as used in CH-53 and CH-47 during Vietnam war). The container is connected to the gun via the flexible chute. If chute is overly long, an additional electrical feed booster is installed on the ammunition container. by :
Saumy Chopra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.133.167 ( talk) 06:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sources: Jane's: "15mm FN-15 heavy machine gun" "15.5 x 106 mm". http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Infantry-Weapons/15-mm-FN-BRG-15-heavy-machine-gun-Belgium.html
Author Anthony G Williams, on World War 2 aircraft armament: "The most powerful of all the HMG's was the 15 mm MG 151". http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
Aviation of World War II: "MG-151 machine gun" "15mm". http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/mg151-shtml
World Guns: "ZB-60" "BESA 15mm heavy machine gun". "The first test guns were more properly classified as automatic cannon, because of their 20mm caliber." http://world.guns.ru/machine/chex/26-60-e.html Sulasgeir ( talk) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Guns firing large-caliber explosive rounds are generally considered either autocannons or automatic Noob tubes ("grenade machine guns")."
Noob tubes? Definitely vandalism. --bean 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwzzhang ( talk • contribs)
The first bullet point in the operation paragraph contains the following text:
"...until the trigger is activated making bolt carrier move forward"
This quote fails to distinguish between machine guns firing from the open bolt position, and those firing from the closed bolt position.
The Browning machine gun, which fires from the closed bolt position, has a lever to the rear of the weapon which releases the bolt carrier, allowing it to move forward. In the example of this particular weapon, it is not the trigger that performs this function.
In the FN series of belt fed weapons, notably the MINIMI, the bolt stays to the rear when the weapon is cocked. The bolt carrier only moves forward when the trigger is pulled.
A revision to this list of bullet points could include two methods of operation. One for open-bolt weapons, and one for closed-bolt weapons.
Ex Soldier, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.27.144 ( talk) 13:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Although the Metal Storm design is radically different to other types of rapid fire gun, I think it is reasonable to include a reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eworrall ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have always read that 20mm + is the cutoff for autocannons. If there is indeed debate about this (it says "16mm or larger" in the text...are there 17mm, 18mm, 19mm MG or cannons even?), it should at least say that some people consider 20mm and larger the cutoff for autocannons. I've never heard anything except this. Generally it's accepted that a 15mm MG 151 is a machine gun, while a 20mm MG 151/20 is an autocannon. Where does this number come from, who says a 17mm gun is an autocannon and why, and why ignore the commonly stated ""20mm or larger" cutoff. It ought to acknowledge this viewpoint, as indeed there is no "official" cutoff, and explain why some people consider 16mm to be the cutoff, assuming that there must be people who believe this, or they wouldn't have put it in the article. If I need to go and dig up one of the numerous statements to the effect that "20mm is accepted as the minimum caliber for a gun to be considered an autocannon", I will. .45Colt 08:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Bones Jones: @ SQMeaner:. You two are engaged in an edit war over this material. Please use this talk page to discuss it, based on sources and policies. If you can't agree there are some dispute resolution steps you can take. Felsic2 ( talk) 18:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen so many responses in a discussion in such a short period. Sixty-two postings with over 6000 words. It's clear that you both have strongly held positions and my guess is that you each make another 30 replies without coming to an agreement. That's no problem if that's how you want to sped your time, as long as you're being civil. However if you'd like a resolution this matter may be a good candidate for a "third opinion". See WP:3O. Felsic2 ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
I'll be honest—I have not read every word of this discussion. However, looking at the most recent information removed from the article, I would say that information is not consistent with the given citation. The BBC article states that he was "rumoured to be working on an early version of the machine-gun", but the statement removed from the article presented this information with a level of certainty not provided in the source. This information may be worth including in the article, but it needs to be more consistent with the source given. I would focus some effort on constructing a better sentence about this topic—ideally one that addresses both of your concerns. Brad v 03:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Article lead currently reads typically at a rate of 300 rounds per minute or higher. This may be true of current weapons (or not, I have not researched it and it's not sourced in the lead) but it's not generally true historically... complete rubbish would not be an overstatement IMO! Andrewa ( talk) 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see if info about this: [1] could be added. Seems to be a machine gun produced before this article says they were produced, if it meets the standards. Even if not, it would still fit in with the Belton and others. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Machine gun is a fully automatic weapons, not a rapid-firing weapons LongnamXL35 ( talk) 14:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
IMO the common meaning of "automatically" here is multiple shots (by design of the gun) without requiring an individual pull of the trigger for each shot, and the common meaning of "rapid fire" here is faster than humans can do when you get only one shot per pull of the trigger.
There seems to be a lot entries about one-off proto-machine guns from passing mentions in offbeat sources in the article. There is little to no detail about their operation in the sources provided, and they do little to show the evolution of the machine gun through history. They appear to be evolutionary dead ends that aren't worth mentioning; as such, they should be removed. ( Hohum @) 18:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Is that the legal definition of a machine gun, rifled? So if you pull the trigger on a gun & it automatically fires, it is not a machine gun if the barrel is not rifled? It is noted that a definition is given which seems contrary to the above: "a fully automatic firearm that loads, fires and ejects continuously when the trigger is held to the rear until the ammunition is exhausted or pressure on the trigger is released." There is no mention of rifled in that definition. ( TerryKave ( talk) 19:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC))
It is suggested that consistency be used in the punctuation of lists. Some consultation on the way to punctuate lists might be helpful. ( TerryKave ( talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC))
It is suggested that the punctuation might be changed, or the sentence restructured to clarify the meaning of this group of words: "As each round is fired, electrically, the carriage moves back". Does electrically modify fired or moved back?
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire bullets in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine, typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute. The first design/invention of the machine gun was by Leonardo Da Vinci, presenting a design of an eight barreled machine gun that was operated manually by a bandcrank, and was mounted onto the ground, and barely portable. However, the more modern machine gun was designed by Samborino and Jordanian, two extremely active troublemakers."
Citation needed?
Perhaps I'm being paranoid but the bold text sounds biased to me with the use of the word "troublemakers".
Jimothy 183 ( talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over the article, and everything is fine except for one thing. Metal Storm weapons and miniguns are notable "rapid fire" weapons, but are not really true machine guns unless powered by the byproduct of their projectile (and they're not). So on the "Future" section near the bottom that mentions Metal Storm and the minigun, should I delete this section, or should I leave it and just modify the contents?
Because I hate to break it to you, but neither of those weapon systems are machine guns.
not sure about the metal storm as it kinda defies modern conventional firearms design, assuming you are referring to the M134 Minigun, it is absolutely 100% classified as a machine gun as it is automatically driven by a electric motor. you may be mistaking it for the Gatling gun, which cannot be classified as a machine gun because it is manually hand cranked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.44.21 ( talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, sombody changed in the operating principals section, the thing about when squirt guns were first used, and the random quote about peeing on a statue is illegal, i really hate poeple like that, i couldnt figure out how to change it back, kinda new here, but just a heads up to anybody who knows how to do this. it just didnt look right to me. Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.60.228 ( talk) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The most popular feature of machine guns and similiar weapons is their speed... Why the speed is nto specifically addressed anywhere? I mean, with data like "fire X bullets per sec" or something like that. 200.106.40.22 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That isnt to true as most machine guns have arouind the same rate of fire exept for a couple the major difffernces you see are mostly in video games. The most important thing is really
If you think about any machine gun will keep a solider down in cover.( ForeverDEAD 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UT
"most machine guns have around the same rate of fire"?! Definately not true. Let's take a look at some well known ROF stats. A Mac 10 (or Mac 11) has a fire rate of over 1200 RPM (rounds per minute), or 20 rounds per second. Likewise, the venerable M2 machine gun has a relatively sluggish ROF of about 500 RPM, or about 8-9 rounds per second (I'm not doing the math). And even if you claim that the Mac 10 is a "submachine gun", there are plenty of very fast fully-fledged machine guns. Look at the M16 page or the P90 page, which technically IS a machine gun, because it uses rifle bullets.
Also, video games typically recreate ROF to a certain degree; if the gun fires too fast, they modify it so that it is more gamer friendly.
Lastly, though any weapon will suppress, 99% of the time it is better to kill your enemy than suppress him if you can, which means a more accurate machinegun=better.
P.S. To the first commenter, the Wiki pages do tell you the rate of fire. It's called either RPM or cyclic rate, and you need to divide the number by 60 to get the number of rounds per second. Eiffel56 ( talk) 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
SEWalk, I think you might be missing the point "speedguy" is trying to make - he's talking about functional differences between MGs, not legality. Rate of fire is important, and it does vary. If the magazine-fed Bren light mg had been designed with the same 1200rpm cyclic rate of the belt-fed MG 42, it would have been useless. Modern SAWs have similar rates of fire, but SAWs are only one of many types of machineguns, adapted to one of many purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.218 ( talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Are all automatic weapons considered machine guns?
True, but machine guns do not always have to be belt fed. Eiffel56 ( talk) 05:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Should applicattion be a factor when classifying these things? By your definition an M249 SAW (Belt fed or high capacity magazine) is called a Squad Automatic Weapon because it is used as a support for a unit of troops at squad size, instead of a Light machine gun which would be used to cover a larger group from a fixed position or vehicle mounted. This principle could solve some issues with regards to what qualifies as an assault rifle also, as it is a rifle that combines semi or full automatic fire, stopping power and mobility in an assault situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.75.4 ( talk) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This consensus is at odds with what the article current states, which is that A machine gun is any weapon capable of firing more than one projectile with one action of the trigger, which clearly includes automatic rifles, submachine guns, automatic shotguns, etc. Wootery ( talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Crediting da Vinci with the invention seems incorrect, his design could only fire 6 rounds before needing to be reloaded and was functionally more similar to already extant Organ_gun then to the true machine guns of Maxim and Gatling.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.85.232 ( talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone actually know what the effects/consequences are of an overheated gun? That'd be a great addition either here, or somewhere... I'm primarily interested in the technical specifics. I imagine barrel warping occurs, but what actually stops you from firing anyway? Having no idea on the subject, I imagine things start melting? -- Moogleii 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
* Accelerated wear of the bore. * Expansion of the barrel leading to loss in bullet velocity and finally to tumbling of the projectile. * Stoppage of gun caused by the expanded barrel seizing in the trunnion block or flash suppressor. * . Ignition (cook-off) of the propelling charge by the heat of the barrel.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m296.htm
Yeah, you don't want to overheat your barrel or your ammo box, as there have been reports of the entire magazine shooting off without control, which only makes it hotter... Also, the above user is right. GoogleVid the clip where some guy shoots thousands of rounds through his AK-47 and look at how innaccurate his gun is.
Describe the new page here. The following was the content of the Machine-guns page, which is improperly pluralized and less descriptive than Machine Gun:
These weapons have changed the tactics of warfare. They are mechanisms for spraying bullets onto an area of ground, enabling one, two or three man teams to provide the same fire power as a whole platoon. The standard weapon of the Wehrmacht was not the rifle but the machine-gun.
Known patterns of MG: General Purpose Machine Gun/ GPMG Squad Assault Weapon/ SAW Browning 50 caliber MG42 Bren gun ...others...
While the Wehrmacht had terrific light machine guns, it still wasn't the standard weapon. -- Belltower
The article says: Many of the M2 .50Cal machine guns are so accurate that they can actually be used to snipe targets at great distances, although the morality of this practice has been questioned.
I'm unqualified to confirm or disconfirm this, but it sounds odd to me. Why would this morality of this practice (in a wartime context, of course, sniping is surely immoral at other times) be questioned? By whom?
please look here: http://styrheim.weblogg.no/100204222411_the_legality_of_125mm_multipurpo.html
Does anybody know anything about Hiram Maxim? I think he invented the first effective MG but I'm not sure.
A few points:
Regarding morality...questioned: There exists a military "urban legend" that it is unlawful under the Laws of Armed Conflict to deliberately target personnel with .50 cal weapons. It is untrue.
GPMG is not a specific weapon, but a class of machine guns designed to be used as either LMG or MMG.
Hiram Maxim was pretty famous in the nineteenth century, and invented heaps of stuff as well as the first self-powered machine gun, including the firearm silencer, improved light bulbs and an early airplane.
A few other well known MGs apart from those listed above include:
The article should mention that in military usage, "machine gun" does not include assault rifles or submachine guns, and that such usage by journalists is very annoying to soldiers 8^) --Roger 13 Aug 2003
Can anyone conifrm what I've read about the development of the .50 M1917? I've read it originated when Pres Roosevelt's son (Lt. Elliot?) fired a .30 that was unable to penetrate Ger a/c armor, & was KIA as a result. Trekphiler 01:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"Ah, yes. My apologies. It turns out to be a common myth; there is indeed no problem with them under the Geneva conventions, and some armies do teach snipers that this is a reasonable use. (The myth goes on to claim, colorfully, that the USMC teaches snipers that aiming at personnel is verboten but aiming at equipment is okay - and dog tags, helmets, and uniforms qualify as equipment. Cute but counterfactual.) In my defense, it was a member of the Canadian Forces that told me so, and I had the sense to look it up before putting it on any page. --" Andrew 20:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
My cousin recently competled basic traingin or whatever and he told me that his drill instructor told him that but i dont no about any others though( ForeverDEAD 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
Modusponens ( talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC) The stuff about California laws and the term "assault rifle" doesn't seem neutral to me - it looks like it's trying to make a political point about gun laws.
Does anyone have backup material for the comment: A newer intuitive aiming system, favored by the Israelis is to alternate solid and tracer rounds, so shooters can walk the fire into the target. I have heard about this going back to WWII, as well as in many armies, not just Israel. Any opinions on modifiying it? User:Magicmike
Aimed fire is preferable to "walking fire" using tracers, especially in ground mounted machineguns. The use of tracers in daylight, and especially during darkness tends to advertise the position of the firer, and tends to cause the firer to become an intense bullet magnet. The optics available on Armored Fighting vehicles are typically efficient enough that the tracer becomes unecessary. Since most American .30 tracers burn out at around 900 meters, it is often useful to the tank crew to range with tracer ammunition. Some vehicles, and uses like the Bradley Port Weapons do lend themselves to walking fire.
James Baker USA (ret)
The introduction states that: "Such automatic weapons with a caliber of 20 mm or larger are generally referred to as autocannons."
while the overview states: "A fully-automatic firearm with a bullet caliber of more than 12.7mm (0.5 inch) is called an automatic cannon"
I have no idea - which is correct?
The article currently claims that heavy machine guns can be used for sniping. I find this hard to believe (but have no evidence contrdicting it). Perhaps it is confusing them with .50 caliber anti-materiel sniper rifles? -- Andrew 17:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
No, Carlos Hathcock made a special mounting bracket for an M2 machine gun, and managed to set a world record for longest kill. However, just recently, some Canadian (I'm not going to look him up; he's in wikipedia, so find him yourself) just set the new record with a .50 caliber anti-material rifle, so both options are viable.
Regarding sniping with the M2: I have been told by a living, published, Marine historian that the M2 was used as a sniper weapon in Korea in the days before the Chinese intervention. The 1st Marine Division was deployed in the mountainous terrain of North Korea, ostensibly mopping up the remains of the North Korean Army, although finding many indications of Chinese presence. Enemy personnel were often seen at extreme range, e.g. on the hillsides across valleys, as were caves, bunkers, huts, etc. These were sometimes engaged by single .50 rounds from tripod mounted guns. The practice was to take a ranging shots at the door, trail, cave, etc., until the target was registered, then wait for the opposition to show himself. I have no reports of a success ratio with this technique. As any mountain goat or sheep hunter will attest, a lot can happen to a bullet as it crosses a valley, and GI ammunition was certainly not National Match. My information comes from a good primary source, a company grade officer who was at the end of the road at Yudam-ni and was still walking when the regiment the sea. Seattle Jan 11, 2006
There is a lot of it in this article especially in the History section. Here are some specifics:
Some weapons, such as the AR-15/M16, integrate the piston with the bolt. Others, such as the M15 and AK patterns, attach the piston to a bolt carrier that unlocks and operates the bolt.
The M16 does not have a piston, it operates on the principle of direct gas impingement. Gas is tapped off the barrel and directed back onto the bolt to force it open and cycle the action. The M16 also does have a bolt carrier. A better way to break assault rifles down is probably when they have operating rods (op rods) like the AKs or FAL or not like the HK G3 or M16.
Submachine guns (e.g. the Thompson submachine gun, or 'Tommy gun') as well as lighter machine guns (the BAR for example) saw their first major use in WW1 along with heavy use of large-caliber machine guns.
The Thompson was designed for WWI but the war ended before they saw service. A better example of a WWI submachine gun would be the Sten. Also most heavy machine guns used in WWI were .30 caliber, the same as the BAR. Perhaps this should be altered to "the extensive use of heavy machine guns" which would be more factually correct and maintain the distinction the original author seemed to be trying for.
Design features of machine guns were applied to automatic handguns, "machine pistols", such as the Luger (although these did not yet have full automatic fire).
The Mauser Broomhandle would be a better choice here. While it wasn't it wasn't full-auto either, it at least had a detachable stock.
During the inter-war years, many new designs were developed, such as the Browning 50-caliber, in 1933, which, along with the others were used in World War II.
This sentence is a grammatical trainwreck. Historically, the Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun was designed at the end of WWI and began service in the late 1910s or early 1920s, not 1933. A better example of an inter-war design might be the Bren or one of the early German MG series guns.
I altered the "MG & wire led to stalemate" piece. I've heard air recce was responsible, by making hidden movement impossible. Given that, and the power of QF arty like the M1897 75mm, I'd say attributing it to MG is a bit strong. --squadfifteen, 23/11/05
Does the Villar Perosa merit a mention? The SMG article lists it, but I've read it was tactically an LMG, despite using a 9mm pistol round (& the SMG article lists it as an a/c weapon). --squadfifteen, 23/11/05
"A better example of a WWI submachine gun would be the Sten"
The Sten is a WW2 era weapon that didn't exist until the 1940s.
Changed Multi-shot "guns" to "weapons" in history judging that guns did not exist back in the 1st century.
The article seems to imply that all closed bolt guns are positively locked. Many are not. An example would be closed bolt versions of the UZI.
Next, the description of the typical cartrige ejection system attributes the function of two separate pieces, the extractor and the ejector, to one piece who's description makes little sense.
Not having edited before, I figure I'll wait for comments before making a change. --ming 68.99.181.114 06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the info contained in the introduction (which looks more like a whole article itself) is basically duplicated info from the more detailed sections down below. The introduction shouldn't be too long, and it shouldn't contain so much specific information, especially when all the same information is already in the article with better writing. The article also needs reordering of the sections. -- Squalla 20:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The article states a precursor for LDV's original machine gun design
"Multi-shot guns have a long development, going as far back to the 1st century, with plans for a multi-shot arrow gun by Greek engineer Hero of Alexandria."
but neglects to mention the Chu-Ko-Nu repeating crossbow which was a machine gun for arrows of sorts. -- ColourBurst 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Say, are there articles where there is a place to put this image Image:Shanghai1937KMT machine gun nest.jpg? It's quite a distinctive picture, as I have not seen the likes of it before (as compared to say, trench warfare or a person lying prone) ... was looking on an article desribing defensive tactics where this would be useful. It does say a lot about the often heard, "a machine gun nest! Quick, throw a grenade!" type of scenario, or that nest one can't seem to be able to identify accurately. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"To this end, most light machine guns and general purpose machine guns are not designed for high accuracy, as would be expected of a rifle. Most are designed with a small degree of inaccuracy, referred to as the "cone of fire", because the rounds spread out as they travel towards the target area, rather like the spread of a shotgun, but continuous."
I find this to be a dubious claim. By what mechanism does the author suggest that machine guns are deliberately made inaccurate to increase their cone of fire? And for that matter, you have a "cone of fire" for automatic weapons designed to be accurate - it's inherent to rapid fire.
In order to deliberately make a gun less accurate, you would have to introduce a mechanism, or loosen the tolerances to the point of creating inaccuracy. Could someone provide evidence that these factors are considered and even encouraged in machine gun design?
A distinction should be made between single-shot accuracy and a cone of fire created by recoil. Machine guns are typically more accurate than their rifle counterparts, and, for that matter, have a smaller cone of fire and are less affected by recoil. But in either case, you're talking about two seperate things. SenorBeef 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction, it states:
The first machine gun was constructed in Britain, 1913, 2 months before the first world war. It was designed several hundred years prior by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Later, the article says:
The first true machine gun was invented in 1881 by Hiram Maxim.
I believe the latter is accurate, the former makes no sense, and is grammatically poor. Boomcoach 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is very good, and I did not want to step on the current editors. Excellent article. Boomcoach 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
hai i am NIRMAL, can u say the mechanim of guns```````` and how does the maxium forse occurs inside the gun and that it pushes the bullet outside ......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.153.215 ( talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
On 17 July, I added a description of the Washington D.C. definition of machine gun to an existing description of the US legal definition in the introduction. This description was removed by an unregistered user who described it as specious (description was accurate and did not attempt to overstate the case, listing info from D.C press releases and news articles about the case) and as not germain [sic] to a generalized discussion.
The first point baffles me. The details were all verifiable. Google's cache has expired, but the initial press release by the mayor's office was shown by the Google cache to have been modified, lending confusion to the District's definition. However, I have been able to locate a copy of the original press release with the wording about machine guns at the D.C Office of Secretary's site. Obviously, the wording should be changed to recognize this more reliable source instead of the expired Google cache, but this does not change any facts presented in the addition to this article.
The second point is also unsupported. As is already demonstrated in the article's inclusion of a legal definition of machine gun, the legal definition is fundamental to categorizing weapons since restrictions are based on such definitions. When D.C. defines machine guns in contradiction to U.S law, it has legal ramifications for gun owners. Information about such contradictions is part of the discussion of machine guns and should be freely available. Such information should probably not belong in the introduction, however. I would like to hear suggestions on creating a new section or adding the D.C. information to an existing section. Kylos h ( talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph seems to contradict its self since it defines a machine gun as " fully-automatic" and then goes on to say that non-automatic "manually operated, for example, by turning a hand crank" guns were "machine guns". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For the last time, for all those who read this, a Gatling gun is NOT a machine gun. Would someone please fix that in this article?!?! Because I know that would take a while. Because, by definition, a machine gun has to be "FULLY" automatic, and by using a hand crank or even a motor, the Gatling requires movement from the operator or motor for EACH shot, as opposed to only once. Come on, people, can't you tell a contradictory sentence when you see one? Eiffel56 ( talk) 06:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Rifle-calibre ammunition isn't right either - that would rule out .50 cal. And isn't a sub-machine gun a category of machine gun? I don't recall Machine Gun Kelly using a tripod. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"A model of a typical entrenched German machine gunner in World War I. He is operating an MG08, wearing a Stahlhelm and cuirass to protect him from shell fragments, and protected by rows of barbed wire and sandbags." This is misleading, the cuirass was meant to protect primarily against bullets afaik. Lastdingo ( talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
At the begginning of the article, the date for the maxim gun is 1884, and in the middle of the article it is 1881. 75.105.246.92 ( talk) 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
M134 and GAU-2/A 'Minigun' Gatling machine gun (USA)
General Electric M134 Minigun machine gun of Vietnam war (late 1960s) era, on pedestal mount.
Dillon Aero M134D Minigun of current manufacture, with manual control unit and feed chute.
Image: Dillon Aero
M134D Minigun of current manufacture, mounted on the roof of the military car.
Image: Dillon Aero
M134D Minigun of current manufacture, on Naval pedestal mount, with ammunition container.
Image: Dillon Aero
M134 Minigun on infantry type tripod, as often seen on civilian entertainment events such as Knob Creek machine gun shot in USA.
Data for M134D Minigun
Caliber 7.62x51 NATO Weight 24...30 kg gun with motor and feeder/delinker, less ammunition container and power source Length 801 mm Barrel length 559 mm Feed belt in 1500, 3000 or 4500 round containers Rate of fire 3000 or 4000 rounds per minute, fixed
The development of a rifle-caliber, externally powered Gatling type machine gun was commenced by weapons branch of the US-based General Electric Corporation in 1960, following the successful development and fielding of the 20mm M61 Vulcan automatic gun (used in aircraft and AA applications). First prototypes of the 7.62mm Gatling-type machine gun were fired in 1962, and in late 1964 first 7.62mm machine guns, dubbed 'the Minigun', were mounted on AC-47 Gunship aircraft for combat trials. Following the definitive success of the first 'Gunship' aircrafts armed with Miniguns, GE commenced mass production of the new weapon, officially adopted by US Army as M134 Minigun and by US Air Forces as GAU-2/A machine gun. By 1971 more than 10,000 Miniguns were produced and delivered to US Armed forces. Most were used in airborne applications, installed in a variety of side- or forward-firing mountings aboard aircrafts and helicopters (AH-1 Cobra, UH-1 Huey, HH-53 Green Giant and others). Some Miniguns also were installed on riverine crafts, used by US Navy and Special forces in Vietnam.Thanks to its sustained-fire capability and high rate of fire, Minigun weapons provided excellent suppressive and area denial capabilities. It must be noted, however, that infantry applications of the Miniguns were very limited due to the weight of the system and its requirement for external electric power. In most cases, Minigun machine guns were (and still are) mounted on high mobility vehicles as anti-ambush weapons. In recent times, production of the 7.62mm Miniguns was resumed by US-based company Dillon Aero, which is now manufacturing an improved version of the basic design, known as M134D. It has many upgrades in detail, resulting in decreased weight of the system (especially when using titanium gun body), improved reliability and better handling and maintenance. The M134D machine gun is used on board of many military helicopters (such as MH-6 or UH-60), as well as on HMMMV trucks and naval crafts (to provide close-in defense against small, fast-moving vessels such as suicide-bomber motorboats). It must be noted that M134 miniguns are very rarely used for infantry applications; photos of M134 installed on standard light tripods are almost universally from some 'Civilian' events such as Knob Creek shot in USA, where people can fire a number of legally owned full automatic weapons just for fun. Military has no place for a 30-kg weapon (less mount and batteries) with extremely high ammunition consumption rate in a 'man-portable' class of small arms. Prospects of using M134 in 'Hollywood-style' are even less realistic, not only because of aforementioned properties (heavy weight and unnecessarily high rate of fire) but also due to the extremely high recoil force - at just 3,000 rounds per minute the Dillon Aero M134D minigun generates average recoil force of 150 lbs / 67.5 kg, with peak recoil reaching 300 lbs / 135 kg. The M134 Minigun is an externally operated weapon which uses electrical motor drive to operate its action. Typical power requirements for 3,000 rounds per minute (50 rounds/second) rate of fire are 24-28 V DC, 58 Amp (~1.5 KWt); with increase of rate of fire power requirements rise accordingly. The gun operates on Gatling principle, that is it employs a rotary cluster of six barrels, each with its own bolt group. Bolts are moved back and forth behind each barrel as their operating roller passes an internal curved track machined inside the receiver cover. Typically, the topmost barrel in the cluster has its bolt fully open and the bottom barrel in cluster has its bolt fully closed, locked and firing pin released to fire the loaded cartridge. Barrel locking is achieved by the rotary bolt head. Since the gun operates on external power, it is immune to dud / misfired rounds, which are ejected during the normal cycle of operation. Feed is provided either by linkless chute or by the linked ammunition, In the latter case, a powered feeder/delinker module is installed on the gun; it receives necessary power through the gear from the gun motor. To properly operate the gun, it is fitted with electronics control box, which, in the case of manually controlled installation, has an 'master arm' switch and fire controls (triggers). Typical feed arrangement uses a large container holding some 1,500 (full weight ~ 125 lbs / 58 kg) to 4,500(full weight ~ 295 lbs / 134 kg) rounds, with maximum capacity reaching well over 10,000 rounds per gun in certain heavy helicopter installations (such as used in CH-53 and CH-47 during Vietnam war). The container is connected to the gun via the flexible chute. If chute is overly long, an additional electrical feed booster is installed on the ammunition container. by :
Saumy Chopra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.133.167 ( talk) 06:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sources: Jane's: "15mm FN-15 heavy machine gun" "15.5 x 106 mm". http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Infantry-Weapons/15-mm-FN-BRG-15-heavy-machine-gun-Belgium.html
Author Anthony G Williams, on World War 2 aircraft armament: "The most powerful of all the HMG's was the 15 mm MG 151". http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
Aviation of World War II: "MG-151 machine gun" "15mm". http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/mg151-shtml
World Guns: "ZB-60" "BESA 15mm heavy machine gun". "The first test guns were more properly classified as automatic cannon, because of their 20mm caliber." http://world.guns.ru/machine/chex/26-60-e.html Sulasgeir ( talk) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Guns firing large-caliber explosive rounds are generally considered either autocannons or automatic Noob tubes ("grenade machine guns")."
Noob tubes? Definitely vandalism. --bean 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwzzhang ( talk • contribs)
The first bullet point in the operation paragraph contains the following text:
"...until the trigger is activated making bolt carrier move forward"
This quote fails to distinguish between machine guns firing from the open bolt position, and those firing from the closed bolt position.
The Browning machine gun, which fires from the closed bolt position, has a lever to the rear of the weapon which releases the bolt carrier, allowing it to move forward. In the example of this particular weapon, it is not the trigger that performs this function.
In the FN series of belt fed weapons, notably the MINIMI, the bolt stays to the rear when the weapon is cocked. The bolt carrier only moves forward when the trigger is pulled.
A revision to this list of bullet points could include two methods of operation. One for open-bolt weapons, and one for closed-bolt weapons.
Ex Soldier, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.27.144 ( talk) 13:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Although the Metal Storm design is radically different to other types of rapid fire gun, I think it is reasonable to include a reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eworrall ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have always read that 20mm + is the cutoff for autocannons. If there is indeed debate about this (it says "16mm or larger" in the text...are there 17mm, 18mm, 19mm MG or cannons even?), it should at least say that some people consider 20mm and larger the cutoff for autocannons. I've never heard anything except this. Generally it's accepted that a 15mm MG 151 is a machine gun, while a 20mm MG 151/20 is an autocannon. Where does this number come from, who says a 17mm gun is an autocannon and why, and why ignore the commonly stated ""20mm or larger" cutoff. It ought to acknowledge this viewpoint, as indeed there is no "official" cutoff, and explain why some people consider 16mm to be the cutoff, assuming that there must be people who believe this, or they wouldn't have put it in the article. If I need to go and dig up one of the numerous statements to the effect that "20mm is accepted as the minimum caliber for a gun to be considered an autocannon", I will. .45Colt 08:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Bones Jones: @ SQMeaner:. You two are engaged in an edit war over this material. Please use this talk page to discuss it, based on sources and policies. If you can't agree there are some dispute resolution steps you can take. Felsic2 ( talk) 18:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen so many responses in a discussion in such a short period. Sixty-two postings with over 6000 words. It's clear that you both have strongly held positions and my guess is that you each make another 30 replies without coming to an agreement. That's no problem if that's how you want to sped your time, as long as you're being civil. However if you'd like a resolution this matter may be a good candidate for a "third opinion". See WP:3O. Felsic2 ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
I'll be honest—I have not read every word of this discussion. However, looking at the most recent information removed from the article, I would say that information is not consistent with the given citation. The BBC article states that he was "rumoured to be working on an early version of the machine-gun", but the statement removed from the article presented this information with a level of certainty not provided in the source. This information may be worth including in the article, but it needs to be more consistent with the source given. I would focus some effort on constructing a better sentence about this topic—ideally one that addresses both of your concerns. Brad v 03:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Article lead currently reads typically at a rate of 300 rounds per minute or higher. This may be true of current weapons (or not, I have not researched it and it's not sourced in the lead) but it's not generally true historically... complete rubbish would not be an overstatement IMO! Andrewa ( talk) 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see if info about this: [1] could be added. Seems to be a machine gun produced before this article says they were produced, if it meets the standards. Even if not, it would still fit in with the Belton and others. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Machine gun is a fully automatic weapons, not a rapid-firing weapons LongnamXL35 ( talk) 14:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
IMO the common meaning of "automatically" here is multiple shots (by design of the gun) without requiring an individual pull of the trigger for each shot, and the common meaning of "rapid fire" here is faster than humans can do when you get only one shot per pull of the trigger.
There seems to be a lot entries about one-off proto-machine guns from passing mentions in offbeat sources in the article. There is little to no detail about their operation in the sources provided, and they do little to show the evolution of the machine gun through history. They appear to be evolutionary dead ends that aren't worth mentioning; as such, they should be removed. ( Hohum @) 18:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Is that the legal definition of a machine gun, rifled? So if you pull the trigger on a gun & it automatically fires, it is not a machine gun if the barrel is not rifled? It is noted that a definition is given which seems contrary to the above: "a fully automatic firearm that loads, fires and ejects continuously when the trigger is held to the rear until the ammunition is exhausted or pressure on the trigger is released." There is no mention of rifled in that definition. ( TerryKave ( talk) 19:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC))
It is suggested that consistency be used in the punctuation of lists. Some consultation on the way to punctuate lists might be helpful. ( TerryKave ( talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC))
It is suggested that the punctuation might be changed, or the sentence restructured to clarify the meaning of this group of words: "As each round is fired, electrically, the carriage moves back". Does electrically modify fired or moved back?