Talk:M240 machine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

I would like to call into question the range. In the army gunners with the 240B and the 240C are taught that t effective range is 900 meters (tracer burn out).

No. While you are correct that 900m is tracer burn out, a good gunner can reliably engage targets at greater distances when using a tripod. I was a M240B gunner for a year and never saw a TM, hand out and training guide of any kind that gave a different impression. I was consistantly taught that 1800m is the maximum effective range for a 240B on a tripod against an area target. And then I would go out to the range and knock down groups of E-type silhouettes at 1800m. It's harder to walk rounds in at night past tracer burn out, but it can be done with modern night vision systems. EvilCouch 10:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M13 link

The type of disintegrating metal link used with the M60 should not be included in the lead section. The lead section generally describes the subject of the article, and the M13 link is the kind of specific information that should be added somewhere else in the article. Additionally, it is not a component of the machine gun per se, and any other ammunition link for the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge can be used in the same function. The belt is not an integral part of the weapon, and the model/type used may vary. —Squalla 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The M240 only works with the M13 link and is integral to how it functions internally. Other 7.62 belt systems did not work (unless it is simply re-dsignation of the M13 link design). That said, I agree the information can be more concise for introduction. Ve3 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct U.S Military name

The correct designation is with Machine Capitalized, that is the primary source and according to wikipedia guidlines it must respected.Ve3 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the discussion I directed you to, there are several reasons for the generally agreed naming convention. From previous experience with you, I will not revert your moves again, as I am sure you will revert them before reaching any agreement. —Squalla 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read the discussion (I just prefer the U.S. military standards), this is all resolved now though. Ve3 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurray for Army standards. And let me tell you the M240B is the finest bullet launcher us ground pounders use. Ultratone85 14:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to correct one thing: the M240 is not "based" on the FN MAG, it *IS* the FN MAG.

[edit] join into FN mag

The M240 is a dirivaed of the FN MAG. you would have like say a south koren version of a m16 join into the normal m16 artical.(i dont no if they use m16 its just 1st country i could think of. based on thousands of firearms articals that have direvetes in differnt countrys, they go to the place of origin. Based on this itshould be merged. yes some mgiht say this may give more google results or osme very unrelible source for it being the same. and this gun isnt referd to the m240 al alround the world as m240.comon the origanl gun has less info tghen this has(Esskater11 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

-I agree, the M240 is only a name. The weapon that this refers to is an american build MAG 58. I feel that the same goes for the M249 page, the weapon there is the FN Minimi. But if all the american soldiers out there wish to keep a page for there own weapons I would recommend that they start sighting their sources. There are charts in the article that seem nice and convincing but I have no clue where they came from (EX. The chart about testing the mag 58 against other guns, where did the numbers come from?) Or just the breakdown of all the different variants, sure it is nice to know, and yes you might have been taught them all when you went through basic, but unless you took a note down about what the pam you got that info from that information does not meet the wiki policy for submission. Wikipedia is not a publishing house for first hand research, cite the sources of your information or don't post it. Pissedpat 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I understand the logic and reasoning behind this merger proposal (or rather discussion), however, I would have to note that there are many Wikipedia articles that go into depth and have enough sufficient and credible information to stand on it's own versus being merged into the original weapon/vehicle/aircraft/machine. -TabooTikiGod 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I understand the reasonable logic behind this proposal as well. However, the history of the adoption and subsequent use of the M240 by the United States military in my mind is too large a piece to be placed in an article for the FN MAG58 as whole. The M240 has spawned an entirely separate series of variants as well, and only a portion have direct equivalents within the MAG58 family. FN Markets the two systems separately. This is the same reason why I support the continued separation of the FN Minimi and M249 articles. The M240 article should be kept for the depth it goes into on the topic and the FN MAG58 for the information on the system at base and its original development history. -- Thatguy96 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FOR the merge. I see no reason to have two seperate articles on the same design. The M240B has some external changes in the furniture. That's it, and all the other M240, US-specific variants will also be listed and described in a revised and moredetailed MAG article that I'm currently working on. We don't have seperate pages for every other variant of the MAG used by every army on this planet, what makes the M240 different? Koalorka 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Read my opposition statement again. There are good reasons for the split, and this happens in other military hardware articles, where the relevant history and development becomes a seperate matter (see things like the split of the Sea King articles and the multiple articles surrounding the H-1 series. The M240 series has a very intricate history, is marketed differently by FN, and has spawned a whole range of variants all by itself. There is a good reason to keep them separate. -- Thatguy96 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AGAINST - You'll lose too much specific info on the M240. P.S.: There are other MAG variant articles that are more deserving of the merge: check on the L7 and Ksp58 articles. D.E. Watters 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)