Talk:M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

The technical description passage is lifted straight from Modern Firearms. This seems to be a major problem with a number of Wikipedia gun articles. Can anybody determine if the person who posted it here has permission from the original author? Tronno 19:00, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I rewrote the copyrighted material. Feel free to revert to the previous edit if you think this was unnecessary. Tronno 19:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Minor edit (3 Mar 2005) on the Australian F89, its differences compared to the original Minimi and its use in Australian service.

Okay I had to clarify the effective range... 600m for point targets from the SHOULDER is just insane. I can't believe the US Army teaches that!

Australian doctrine says 400m for point targets from the prone. Obviously different ideas on the definition of "effective." :)

I agree - someone in the US is overstating the case I think! Rob cowie 08:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
US max effective ranges would be from the prone position UNLESS stated otherwise. I won't argue about the point target max eff. range being correct or not, but I didn't see anthing relating to effective range being from the shoulder. --TGC55 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Netherlands

The Netherlands also use Minimi, according to several government sources that I got via-via and a so-called 'open day', that had reservists showing this weapon and talking about it. Can someone expand this article?

Done. Tronno

[edit] Minimi

The manufacturer's name for the gun is Minimi, not M249. Any votes for a page move? Tronno

  • I don't have a problem with changing the name. However, the US was the first to adopt the Minimi, and is probably the largest user. --D.E. Watters July 1, 2005 02:41 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposed to it - Minimi is probably more appropriate, even though it is known by most people by the M249/M249 SAW designation. Squalla 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm for a move. After all, FN Minimi is the correct name. Though it's US name should be mentioned at the top. --Mickel 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is important to note that the FN Minimi, and Minimis used by armed forces all over the world, are not completely the same as the M249. The XM249 was an FN Minimi, but the PIP Kit improvements (most notably the heat shield) are not found on Minimis in other armed forces, and weapons with these features are sold by FN as "M249" series weapons. This is also the case between the FN MAG58 and the FN "M240" which have minor differences, and are sold by FN, at least in the United States as "M240" series weapons and not as MAG58 series weapons. The M249 is essentially a variant of the stock FN Minimi, at least if my general understanding has been correct over the years. I am still in favor a move, and I'm definitly in favor of both weapons being contained within the same page, but I think it should just be noted --Thatguy96 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one is complaining so I'm moving it over --Narson 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this sooner- I am not against a combined page, nor having a Minimi page, but its cannot be done like this. The M249 specifications are nearly all different than the Minimi- a M249 table cannot simply be renamed Minimi! Also, the M249 is made in SC by FN USA and marketed seperately and in addition to the Minimi by FN. The manufacturer's name for the M249 is M249- the Minimi is a seperate (though obviously parent) product.
In addition, developments of the M249 and developments of the Minimi are not always related. Furthermore, all the firearm books I have, give them seperate entries. The M249 and its US variants could easily fill a page, and a whole another page could easily be devoted just to other members of the Minimi family. As it stands now the page is jumble- confusing technical data for one for the other and vice versus. Im going to move it to the US type classification, and try and better seperate the data out until such time as a page move accurately reflects the content. Ve3 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
On a side, technical note, the move (m249 to minimi) created a huge number of double re-directs which I will now try and clean up. Ve3 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I can tell this is gonna take some time to clean up now... --Squalla 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Good luck, the page still has a loooong way to go. Ve3 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effective range

The different doctrines/stances and their respective ranges (infobox) are too confusing in its present states. Could someone with knowledge of the range–stance/doctrine relation organize it with a list or improved punctuation? Squalla 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The effective range is directly related to the effectiveness of the round, not the stance of the firer. Most Manuals say the effective range is 500m, others that the maximum effective range ends at the range of tracer burn out, still more would contend that the weapon is lethal as long as the round still have enuph energy to kill. After you figure what catagory you want you then have to designate whether you are shooting at a point or area target (since it is considered and used as an automatic rifle).


The NATO Ball round at the time I was in the military (circa 1991) had a maximum effective range of 420 meters listed in the field manuals. As far as I know the standard hasn't changed. - Barak

[edit] Pronunciation

After the first mention of Minimi, I think it would be helpful to put a pronunciation guide in brackets, e.g.

Minimi (pronounced mɪnɪmiː)

[edit] Is this article about the Minimi or about the M249 SAW?

You know, now that I'm doing a clean up on the article, I wonder why it was changed from Minimi back to M249 and, at the same time, tons of information were added on the Minimi — it doesn't make sense to me. If this article is about the M249, then why is there so much stuff about the Minimi inside it? I mean, if this article was originally about the Minimi, it wouldn't be a problem to have sections about the M249, since the SAW derived from the Minimi. My suggestion is to remove the unrelated technical data (Minimi-related) from the article and make it an article on its own. I'm doing what I can to clean this up, but I don't think it will ever make sense unless the M249 and Minimi stuff are separated into their own articles. --Squalla 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was changed back because whoever moved didn't change technical data, resulting in a wholly incorrect article. I would have split it off myself (like how the M240/FN MAG setup) but some had wanted to keep the article together in prior discussion. Ve3 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yo Yo Yo 20 dollas!

[edit] Independent article for Minimi

I have created an independent article for the FN Minimi (despite what feels like a jammed keyboard). The text has come from this article with some copyedit along the way. Its a work in progress and I hope to remove some of the FN Minimi specific stuff from this M249 article. All help gratefully receivedGraemeLeggett 11:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a merger before I saw your post, above. Thing is: when you remove the generic Minimi stuff you are copying across I don't think there will be enough left for a stand-alone M249 article.
There,s all that US specific variant stuff which isn't of much relevance in the FN Minimi article. this article should end up more to the point and cover the US "experience" while not getting sidetracked into what others esp Nations outside NATO are up to with it.GraemeLeggett 12:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the merge tags. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Deleted

I've removed the following picture because it's unnecessary and of a very poor quality. It does nothing to show off the M249 (which is the article is about in the first place). If you really want to be a "geek" and put pictures of yourself on Wikipedia at least take the time to take good pictures that add something to the article.

The M249 is a common weapon for US Air Force Air Base Defense teams
The M249 is a common weapon for US Air Force Air Base Defense teams

Ultratone85 14:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mk 48 Mod 0

The Variant Summary Table says the Mk 46 Mod 0 is chambered for the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round. Shouldn't that be the Mk 48 Mod 0? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.215.51 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Someone did that about 2 weeks ago, looks like they did it again, but I missed it because of immediate subsequent edits. Corrected and hopefully it will stay this way this time -- Thatguy96 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/2/4/Talk%7EM249_Squad_Automatic_Weapon_c55a.html"