Talk:M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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.
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.

Contents

[edit] Copyright Violation?

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)

[edit] F89

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

[edit] Effective Range

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)

[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)

BTW, FN insists that it be spelled capitalized, thus MINIMI. Koalorka 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[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!

I merged it with the MINIMI article but looks like petty nationalist pride got in the way and it got reverted. I'm going to need some support with the merge. Check out the FN MINIMI article I just wrote. There's a nice chunk of information about the M249 in it. Lend me your votes and ye shall receive a nicely integrated, organized and cohesive article.. :D Koalorka 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

The M249 isn't significant enough to warrant an entire, almost duplicate article. It's analogous to the M16 situation where I proposed seperate article for the M16, M16A1 and M16A2. This was rejected, so I don't see your point. Koalorka 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm 'for the merger, in fact I did merge it but it got reverted due to "insufficient consent". Somehow it seems everyone else is wanting to merge it anyway.... Koalorka 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, these discussions are not about a merger, but rather the separation of the non-M249 content away from M249 specific content. The article started off as a M249 centric article, then was moved under the Minimi title, moved back to M249, and then split into two articles. Then you came along insisting that it be merged into a single article again. Unless you are going to roll all of the material here into the MINIMI article, you should just leave it here as a separate article. D.E. Watters 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to FN Minimi

    • Well I think we should start a "offical" merge disscusion. ForeverDEAD 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I still think the M249 is not a divergent design. The PIP merely gave it some new furniture and this article has too much speculation and opinion, it's quite the mess. FOR MERGE with the FN MINIMI. Koalorka 05:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • AGAINST - You'll lose too much specific info on the M249. D.E. Watters 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Apart from a few dates and some prototype models, there isn't much to lose... Koalorka 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For very few major differences, most specfic stuff could go under minimi varaints section ForeverDEAD 21:00, 30 October 2007 (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)

[edit] Ameli

I removed part of the Ameli reference. The Ameli is not a scaled down MG3, it uses the roller delayed blowback gas system of the CETME Model C and CETME Model L, not the roller locked recoil action of the MG3.--SAWGunner89 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it some days ago. But some idiot keeps changing it back.84.152.95.226 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NSN?

Is it really necessary to put the NSN for the BFA on this page? Remember this is an encyclopaedia not a reference for unit supply clerks. I understand why it could be justified as appropriate but were does it stop? I could pull out my -23&P for the M249 and list off the couple hundred tiny components that make up the weapon but what would accomplish. I'm going to remove the NSNs that are in this article. Ultratone85 09:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reliablity

How relible is this weapons? ForeverDEAD 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variant Summary Table

The XM249 came first. The XM249E1 appeared after NATO selection of SS109. Army reports during and concerning FY1981 confirm the designation. In 1982, the XM249E1 was officially adopted as the M249; however, manuals of the day often referred to it as the M249E1. The M249 as we know it today didn't appear until the PIP kit was implemented into production, and existing M249E1 were converted. D.E. Watters (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to know, though its really quite confusing heh. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AK similarity

In the recent (spring 2008) issue of Guns & Ammo it was mentioned that the M249 is very similar to the AK in its workings. How true is this, and should it be mentioned? 209.181.58.51 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is gas operated and is locked with a rotary, lugged bolt. That's about it. Koalorka (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)