| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:FN Minimi: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
S&Wshooter (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (61 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Additional Images= | |||
==Other Variants== | |||
[[File:FN-Minimi-1974-Army.jpg|thumb|none|500px|FN Minimi 1974 pre-production army trial model. Note the lack of a STANAG well: this feature was developed later, being patented in 1977.]] | |||
[[File:FN Minimi prototype.jpg|thumb|500px|none|FN Minimi 1977 prototype with 200-round cloth ammo bag - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:Minimi unknown variant.jpg|thumb|500px|none|FN M249 unknown variant]] | |||
[[File:Fn mg m249para11-1-.jpg|thumb|500px|none|FN M249 Para - 5.56x45mm NATO]] | |||
[[File:New Model M249.jpg|thumb|500px|none|New FNH USA M249 SAW - 5.56x45mm NATO]] | |||
[[File:M249 short barrel.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Mk 46 Mod 1 - 5.56x45mm NATO]] | |||
[[File:Minimi Standard 5.56 (2012).jpg|thumb|none|500px|FN Minimi Standard - 5.56x45mm NATO]] | |||
[[File:Para Minimi right side.jpg|thumb|none|500px|FN Minimi Para - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:Minimi 5.56 para tr.jpg|thumb|none|500px|FN Minimi 5.56 Para T.R. - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:MINIMI 556 Mk3 Tactical SB.jpg|thumb|none|500px|FN Minimi 5.56 Mk3 Tactical SB - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:FN Minimi 5.56 Mk3 Para.jpg|thumb|none|500px|FN Minimi 5.56 Mk3 Para - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:M249 railed.jpg|thumb|500px|none|M249 SAW with railed feed tray - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:Sumitomo Minimi bipod.jpg|thumb|500px|none|Sumitomo Minimi on bipod - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:British L110A2.jpg|thumb|500px|none|L110A2 - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:M249 Para Rail.jpg|thumb|none|500px|M249 Paratrooper with Picatinny rails - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:Norinco CS LM8 LMG.jpg|thumb|none|500px|CS/LM8 with 30 round magazine (Norinco-branded) - 5.56x45mm. The CS/LM8 is a Chinese clone of the FN Minimi manufactured by Chongqing Changfeng and exported by Norinco. Another Chinese clone of the FN Minimi, known as the XY 5.56 GPMG, is manufactured by Yunnan Xiyi.]] | |||
[[File:M249SAW.jpg|thumb|500px|none|M249 - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
[[File:MGA SAW K.jpg|thumb|500px|none|MGA SAW K - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
==Screen Used== | |||
[[File:AmericanSniperMark48Mod0.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Screen used stunt Mk 48 Mod 0 from ''[[American Sniper]]''. Image from Prop Store of London.]] | |||
[[File:AmericanSniperMark48Mod02.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Screen used stunt Mk 48 Mod 0. Note that the AN/PEQ-15 is seemingly knocked loose, possibly from the weapon being dropped. Image from Prop Store of London.]] | |||
=Discussion= | |||
==M249== | ==M249== | ||
:My dad REALLY wants an M249. Is this impossible? | :My dad REALLY wants an M249. Is this impossible? | ||
::There are a handful of transferable FN Minimis in the | ::There are a handful of transferable FN Minimis in the United States. Long Mountain Outfitters had one for sale, but it was priced at about $100,000. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] | ||
:Oh well. Christmas is going to be dissapointing for him hahaha-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | :Oh well. Christmas is going to be dissapointing for him hahaha-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Yeah, unless he's a rich lawyer who would pay $100K for a performance car, whenever he hits his mid-life crisis. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:He works too hard to blow alot of $ on something he doesn't need-[[User:S&Wshooter|S&Wshooter]] 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Ohio Ordnance makes semi & full auto versions of many machine gun designs, including the FN Minimi, don't know about pricing, or how much red tape you'd have to go though but here's their site. http://ohioordnanceworks.com/ | |||
==STANAG Compatibility== | |||
According to Wikipedia the Minimi/M249 SAW are compatible with 30-round STANAG magazines and the 5.56mm Beta-C magazine. How common, if at all, would this be in the US military? [[User:MrOshimida27|MrOshimida27]] 18:23, 6 April 2011 (CDT) | |||
Very uncommon the Minimi is unreliable with any sort of magazine. It's a mechanical flaw in the feed system. The weapon runs great with belts but put in a magazine and the reliability drops to nothing. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 18:32, 6 April 2011 (CDT) | |||
Not to mention I've heard it destroys the mag's feed lips, rendering it unusable in an M16 or M4. Never heard of a C-Mag being used in one, but I'd assume it to be possible. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 10:36, 23 November 2013 (EST) | |||
:I highly doubt a standard Beta-C mag would work in a Minimi. Not for mechanical reasons, but due to the geometry. On an AR-15 the drums on the Beta-C extend upwards either side of the receiver of the gun. If you tried to use an M16 Beta-C mag on a Minimi the drums would hit against the receiver before it was seated in the well. However, they do make a [http://www.betaco.com/page.asp?pg=aM249/SAW/FN%20MINIMI version of the C mag for the Minimi] which has a higher tower to get around this, and it also has slightly different geometry at the top which means it doesn't get eaten by the Minimi like a normal STANAG mag. I believe the special Minimi mags are a lot more reliable than STANAG ones, but TBH I don't get the point as the C mag looks very in the way hanging off the side like that, not to mention it would totally bugger the weight distribution. Also, particularly with that stupid high tower, it would really be difficult to carry multiples of these so I don't think they offer any real advantage over belts. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 13:12, 23 November 2013 (EST) | |||
::''[[36th Precinct]]'' as a Minimi Para with a Beta-C mag. It's doesn't actually fire, mind you, so it could just cosmetic. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 13:42, 23 November 2013 (EST) | |||
[[Image:36P_Para_02.jpg|thumb|none|601px|]] | |||
[[Image:36P_Para_05.jpg|thumb|none|601px|Note that rather than a belt in a box, Boulanger is using a Beta-C drum mag inserted into the magazine well.]] | |||
== Mk 48 Mod 0 == | |||
I have a question regarding the Mk 48. Why did they modify a Minimi to the 7.62 Nato, when there are plenty of belt fed 7.62 LMGs in roughly that size? (I'm thinking about the M60E4.) Also what is the commonality of parts between this and the normal M249/Mk 46? Any help will improve my knowledge. Thanks. --[[User:Rebusdi|Rebusdi]] 05:04, 4 October 2011 (CDT) | |||
:A little know secret is that the Minimi was originally designed in 7.62 Nato but then Nato changed to the 5.56 Nato round and so did the Minimi. I believe that there is no major parts commonality between systems due to the change in calibers. As for the reason for the change the SEAL's had the Mk44(M60E4) in their inventory at the time they decided to replace it with the Mk48. If you ever used or worked on these systems you would know what a big POS the M60 systems is compared to the Mk48 or M240.--[[User:Phoenixent|phoenixent]] 17:30, 21 November 2011 (CST) | |||
::The M60E4/Mark 43 is a whole different animal compared to previous models. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 18:34, 5 August 2012 (CDT) | |||
While they M60 had been used since the Vietnam war I think they changed to the MK48 as they can use most of the parts from a M240 or a MK46 machinegun. As far as the MK46/MK48 goes I can't currently confirm it independantly but I read that the only changes between the Mk46 and the Mk48 is the barrel, bolt and feed tray. Since that comes from a Gun magazine I can't really trust it 100%.[[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 21:13, 5 August 2012 (CDT) | |||
:The receiver is different, too. The 48 has a vehicle mounting lug, which was cut from the 46 to save weight. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 06:38, 22 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
== L110A2 appearances? == | |||
Below is an image of the L110A2, which is a British variant of the Para Minimi which has a 19mm dovetail rail with a removable rail mounted rear sight: | |||
[[File:British L110A2.jpg|thumb|400px|none|L110A2 - 5.56x45mm]] | |||
I am sure I have seen a game where it is used with the rail mounted rear sight installed (it is used in ''[[Project Reality]]'' when a SUSAT is mounted) but I can't seem to find it. I think it was from a recent or upcoming game where British forces are portrayed (it isn't ArmA II) and the image I have in my head was a render rather than an in game image. Can anyone think what this could be? At this point am starting to think it might have been a mod I came across rather than a game, or I imagined it. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 05:45, 3 August 2012 (CDT) | |||
== MK46 and MK48 models == | |||
Why don't we just merge them together, similar to how MK12 variants are on the M16 page and MK14 variants are on the M14 page? Instead of having separate entries for each sub-model, we have one for both versions of the MK46 and one for both versions of the MK48? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (EST) | |||
:Sounds like a plan. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 18:34, 12 February 2017 (EST) | |||
Just gonna add my belated comment, I would argue that splitting the different sections makes sorting examples easier since we don't have to specify "Mark 0" or "Mark 1" variant in the tables. I would personally argue that the Mk 14 variants on the M14 page should be split, and that the M16 page should be completely overhauled and split into several smaller pages. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== Differences == | |||
How I can tell the differences between the the original, various licensed models,the unlicensed models, the wz.2003,well you get the point?--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 14:51, 2 May 2017 (EDT) | |||
:As far as I know there is zero relation between the Kbkm wz. 2003 and the FN Minimi, aside from the fact that they are both chambered in 5.56x45mm fed in M27 belts. As for how to tell the difference, as I said they are basically totally different guns so there are a hell of a lot of differences, just compare [http://www.imfdb.org/images/b/b1/M249ParaModel.jpg this] to [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Kbkm2003-01_REMOV.jpg this], the most obvious differences from afar are the rear sight/sight rail, stock, and handguard. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 15:54, 2 May 2017 (EDT) | |||
And the others?--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 16:00, 2 May 2017 (EDT) | |||
:Any ones in particular, there are quite a few. Some are exact copies, some have unique components, some use "standard" components but combine them in different ways, others are cosmetically the same but with machining differences. Just touching on the ones that appear on IMFDB, the C9 has a different front sight, has a 90 degree carry handle and uses the combination of a grooved handguard but no top heatshield (or a textured one also for that matter, and later ones also have a textured handguard with a built in folding grip), and the Sumitomo Minimi has a 90 degree carry handle and uses the combination of a textured handguard with a top heatshield. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (EDT) | |||
== M249E1 and M249E2? == | |||
During my research, I couldn't find any reliable sources on these two designations. Are we sure these two designations refer to actual variants? --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 19:34, 9 December 2018 (EST) | |||
Any ideas?--[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 23:04, 9 December 2018 (EST) | |||
Since I really can't find any source on those two supposed variants and what they describe, and nobody's replying here, I'm gonna consider those two terms unreliable. --[[User:Wuzh|Wuzh]] ([[User talk:Wuzh|talk]]) 14:46, 10 December 2018 (EST) | |||
From my limited knowledge, the "E" designations were only ever used during development, and unofficially at that. The military has always called them just "M249" regardless of variant. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 09:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:19, 8 December 2023
Additional Images
Other Variants
.jpg)
Screen Used
Discussion
M249
- My dad REALLY wants an M249. Is this impossible?
- There are a handful of transferable FN Minimis in the United States. Long Mountain Outfitters had one for sale, but it was priced at about $100,000. -MT2008
- Oh well. Christmas is going to be dissapointing for him hahaha-S&Wshooter 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, unless he's a rich lawyer who would pay $100K for a performance car, whenever he hits his mid-life crisis. -MT2008 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- He works too hard to blow alot of $ on something he doesn't need-S&Wshooter 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohio Ordnance makes semi & full auto versions of many machine gun designs, including the FN Minimi, don't know about pricing, or how much red tape you'd have to go though but here's their site. http://ohioordnanceworks.com/
STANAG Compatibility
According to Wikipedia the Minimi/M249 SAW are compatible with 30-round STANAG magazines and the 5.56mm Beta-C magazine. How common, if at all, would this be in the US military? MrOshimida27 18:23, 6 April 2011 (CDT)
Very uncommon the Minimi is unreliable with any sort of magazine. It's a mechanical flaw in the feed system. The weapon runs great with belts but put in a magazine and the reliability drops to nothing. Rockwolf66 18:32, 6 April 2011 (CDT)
Not to mention I've heard it destroys the mag's feed lips, rendering it unusable in an M16 or M4. Never heard of a C-Mag being used in one, but I'd assume it to be possible. Spartan198 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2013 (EST)
- I highly doubt a standard Beta-C mag would work in a Minimi. Not for mechanical reasons, but due to the geometry. On an AR-15 the drums on the Beta-C extend upwards either side of the receiver of the gun. If you tried to use an M16 Beta-C mag on a Minimi the drums would hit against the receiver before it was seated in the well. However, they do make a version of the C mag for the Minimi which has a higher tower to get around this, and it also has slightly different geometry at the top which means it doesn't get eaten by the Minimi like a normal STANAG mag. I believe the special Minimi mags are a lot more reliable than STANAG ones, but TBH I don't get the point as the C mag looks very in the way hanging off the side like that, not to mention it would totally bugger the weight distribution. Also, particularly with that stupid high tower, it would really be difficult to carry multiples of these so I don't think they offer any real advantage over belts. --commando552 (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2013 (EST)
- 36th Precinct as a Minimi Para with a Beta-C mag. It's doesn't actually fire, mind you, so it could just cosmetic. --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2013 (EST)
Mk 48 Mod 0
I have a question regarding the Mk 48. Why did they modify a Minimi to the 7.62 Nato, when there are plenty of belt fed 7.62 LMGs in roughly that size? (I'm thinking about the M60E4.) Also what is the commonality of parts between this and the normal M249/Mk 46? Any help will improve my knowledge. Thanks. --Rebusdi 05:04, 4 October 2011 (CDT)
- A little know secret is that the Minimi was originally designed in 7.62 Nato but then Nato changed to the 5.56 Nato round and so did the Minimi. I believe that there is no major parts commonality between systems due to the change in calibers. As for the reason for the change the SEAL's had the Mk44(M60E4) in their inventory at the time they decided to replace it with the Mk48. If you ever used or worked on these systems you would know what a big POS the M60 systems is compared to the Mk48 or M240.--phoenixent 17:30, 21 November 2011 (CST)
- The M60E4/Mark 43 is a whole different animal compared to previous models. Spartan198 18:34, 5 August 2012 (CDT)
While they M60 had been used since the Vietnam war I think they changed to the MK48 as they can use most of the parts from a M240 or a MK46 machinegun. As far as the MK46/MK48 goes I can't currently confirm it independantly but I read that the only changes between the Mk46 and the Mk48 is the barrel, bolt and feed tray. Since that comes from a Gun magazine I can't really trust it 100%.Rockwolf66 21:13, 5 August 2012 (CDT)
- The receiver is different, too. The 48 has a vehicle mounting lug, which was cut from the 46 to save weight. Spartan198 (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
L110A2 appearances?
Below is an image of the L110A2, which is a British variant of the Para Minimi which has a 19mm dovetail rail with a removable rail mounted rear sight:
I am sure I have seen a game where it is used with the rail mounted rear sight installed (it is used in Project Reality when a SUSAT is mounted) but I can't seem to find it. I think it was from a recent or upcoming game where British forces are portrayed (it isn't ArmA II) and the image I have in my head was a render rather than an in game image. Can anyone think what this could be? At this point am starting to think it might have been a mod I came across rather than a game, or I imagined it. --commando552 05:45, 3 August 2012 (CDT)
MK46 and MK48 models
Why don't we just merge them together, similar to how MK12 variants are on the M16 page and MK14 variants are on the M14 page? Instead of having separate entries for each sub-model, we have one for both versions of the MK46 and one for both versions of the MK48? Spartan198 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (EST)
- Sounds like a plan. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2017 (EST)
Just gonna add my belated comment, I would argue that splitting the different sections makes sorting examples easier since we don't have to specify "Mark 0" or "Mark 1" variant in the tables. I would personally argue that the Mk 14 variants on the M14 page should be split, and that the M16 page should be completely overhauled and split into several smaller pages. --Wuzh (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (EST)
Differences
How I can tell the differences between the the original, various licensed models,the unlicensed models, the wz.2003,well you get the point?--Dannyguns (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
- As far as I know there is zero relation between the Kbkm wz. 2003 and the FN Minimi, aside from the fact that they are both chambered in 5.56x45mm fed in M27 belts. As for how to tell the difference, as I said they are basically totally different guns so there are a hell of a lot of differences, just compare this to this, the most obvious differences from afar are the rear sight/sight rail, stock, and handguard. --commando552 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
And the others?--Dannyguns (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
- Any ones in particular, there are quite a few. Some are exact copies, some have unique components, some use "standard" components but combine them in different ways, others are cosmetically the same but with machining differences. Just touching on the ones that appear on IMFDB, the C9 has a different front sight, has a 90 degree carry handle and uses the combination of a grooved handguard but no top heatshield (or a textured one also for that matter, and later ones also have a textured handguard with a built in folding grip), and the Sumitomo Minimi has a 90 degree carry handle and uses the combination of a textured handguard with a top heatshield. --commando552 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
M249E1 and M249E2?
During my research, I couldn't find any reliable sources on these two designations. Are we sure these two designations refer to actual variants? --Wuzh (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2018 (EST)
Any ideas?--Wuzh (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2018 (EST)
Since I really can't find any source on those two supposed variants and what they describe, and nobody's replying here, I'm gonna consider those two terms unreliable. --Wuzh (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2018 (EST)
From my limited knowledge, the "E" designations were only ever used during development, and unofficially at that. The military has always called them just "M249" regardless of variant. Spartan198 (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)