| 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:M134 Minigun: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Commando552 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[File:Garwood M134G 2 flange clamp.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G, 2 flange barrel clamp - 7.62x51mm NATO]] | [[File:Garwood M134G 2 flange clamp.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G, 2 flange barrel clamp - 7.62x51mm NATO]] | ||
[[File:Early Garwood M134G.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G, 4 flange barrel clamp - 7.62x51mm NATO]] | [[File:Early Garwood M134G.jpg|thumb|450px|none|Garwood Industries M134G, 4 flange barrel clamp - 7.62x51mm NATO]] | ||
[[Image:XM214 Minigun.jpg|thumb|450px|none|XM134 Microgun- 5.56x45mm NATO]] | |||
==Discussion - Dillion-Aero/'Microgun'== | ==Discussion - Dillion-Aero/'Microgun'== | ||
Revision as of 13:07, 10 July 2013
Other variations
Discussion - Dillion-Aero/'Microgun'
The M134 Minigun is now manufactured By Dillon Aero as the MK44. Dillon Aero also upgrade GE M134's.
Although rumored, The hand held Miniguns are NOT XM214 Microguns.
See the difference here:
I erased the GAU/19A because there's already a page. Drjuki 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Far too many false positives.
"Everything with rotating barrels" is not a sensible definition to use when addressing whether it's in video games or not. Dongs 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Handheld variant discussion:
Is it at all plausible? I realize the recoil would be astronomical, but wouldn't the weight of the gun itself dampen it a bit? And if it is plausible, would it at all be useful in a combat situation? That's One Angry Duck 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooo.
Descriptive Answer: You still need to factor in the weight of the amount of ammo needed to be effective. 2,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO would weigh over 100 pounds. At the high end, 6,000 rpm, that's 20 seconds of firepower. Low end, say 1,250 rpm as seen in Predator, that's about a minute and a half worth of ammo. Then there's the power supply. Think how much a heavy duty car battery weighs. The gun would require something that provides alot of electrical power/torque to operate. So the weight of the gun + weight of the ammo + weight of the batteries + force of recoil = Noooooooooooooo. See the Predator page for more info. Also, if you are not going to be moving because the gun and ammo are stationary, why would you fire the gun by hand instead of having it on a fixed stand?--Gunkatas 06:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC
It would be very convienent to have a 6,000 RPM chainsaw in your hands at any time, but we can only watch movies that make them this way. Maybe making it fire in some sort of burst would make it conservative in the way of ammunition, but then there is always the weight issue with ammunition. There would have to be some sort of lightweight special ammo made for it, anyway it would be to much trouble to even bother making such a weapon. CZAR 00:32, 28 November.
- What if a second man in a two-man crew carried all the ammo, and the other guy just held the gun? That's One Angry Duck 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Say there was a second guy to carry all the ammo and extra batteries. Fine. How well coordinated would those two have to be in order to be effective in the field? Let's say that it's a two man team, one carrying the gun, one carrying everthing else. With the current system, the second guy would be carrying his own weight in gear (clothes, body armor, ammo, water, etc...) and would not likely have a weapon of his own, except maybe a handgun. They would also have to be extermely coordinated in their movements all the time. If the guy with the gun makes a quick 180 degree turn, the guy with the ammo would have to be at least twice as fast or else everything would get tangled. Also, the length of the feed and power cables would have to be short enough not to get stuck in anything, but long enough so that the two people can maneuver. For this to actually work, you would need two people that would move and react at the same speed in the same way every time. That's alot of hassle when you can just equip those two with two LMGs like the M249 or a single GPMG like the M240. --Gunkatas 17:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Consider that the Dillion needs 24VDC and 58amps to run. A couple of aircraft batteries with sufficient amperage to operate the motor weigh about 125-180 pounds. Hand-held isn't plausible. You'd need two men to carry ammo and batteries, and they wouldn't be able to do much more than struggle to walk along. Forget running with it. At best, it could be crew-served, with a four-man team pulling stuff on a cart.
- The hand held Minigun we used in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers 2 was a self contained unit with ammo, fire control and battery mounted in the backpack. But it is impossible to fire the weapon live due to the rapid muzzle climb using live ammunition. --phoenixent 13:52, 18 November 2011 (CST)
I know that the last time they publicly sold the Predator/T2 minigun it had a set of Live barrels in addition to the blanked ones. I'm not sure how much live ammo that has gone through that particular weapon but I do know that the weapon's lower than normal rate of fire (1,250RPM, according to it's last sales add). would put it in the same recoil energy as something like a HK21E or a FN MAG that someone has cranked open the gas port. Difficult to control but not impossible.Still any minigun with a 2,000-4,000rpm gearbox is a strictly mounted proposition.Rockwolf66 02:15, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- Do you actually need special barrels to make a minigun fire blanks as it is electrically driven rather than gas/recoil, or is it more of a safety/legality thing the ensure there is no way it can fire live rounds? --commando552 04:52, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- You do not need special blank only barrels for the minigun to work on blanks. As for the reduced rpm on the Predator/T2 minigun is that Stembridge had to replace the motor after Predator with a 12v variant and that in turn gave the weapon a lower fire rate. The hand held unit I built for GI Joe was tested with the self contained pack at Dillion with live rounds and was completely impossible to control due to the quick muzzle climb.--phoenixent 11:27, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- Wait so you are saying that the gun had an origional Minigun motor while filming Predator? I guess that's what I get for getting my information through an intermediary rather than directly questioning someone who worked on the weapon in question. Really I should start picking the brains of Steve, Al and whoever else I can find who's built or worked on a handheld Minigun in a Hollywood feature and then get all of this information down as it's really interesting and it will kill alot of videogame myths. Rockwolf66 20:19, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- You do not need special blank only barrels for the minigun to work on blanks. As for the reduced rpm on the Predator/T2 minigun is that Stembridge had to replace the motor after Predator with a 12v variant and that in turn gave the weapon a lower fire rate. The hand held unit I built for GI Joe was tested with the self contained pack at Dillion with live rounds and was completely impossible to control due to the quick muzzle climb.--phoenixent 11:27, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- That correct so that is why you see a different rate of fire on Predator comparied to T2. Hope this helped you out... --phoenixent 21:25, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- The Predator minigun wasn't running at full speed either, from everything I've heard on the subject. If it was you wouldn't be able to see the barrels turning when it fired (as I recall that was the reason the RoF was reduced to begin with, because the director thought it would look better on camera). Evil Tim 21:43, 19 November 2011 (CST)
- That had more to due with the camera film speed then the motor on the Minigun. --phoenixent 09:46, 14 December 2011 (CST)
- Um...Even if Predator was shot with some kind of high-speed camera I'd have thought it wouldn't matter since it was still screened at 24 frames per second. IIRC (going off an article in Total Film magazine) wasn't it that they reduced the RoF in Predator by gearing it down rather than altering the motor itself? Evil Tim 10:03, 14 December 2011 (CST)
- That had more to due with the camera film speed then the motor on the Minigun. --phoenixent 09:46, 14 December 2011 (CST)
- The high-speed cameras are used to slow down action and increase screen time when viewed at 24 frames per second. Most automatic weapon fire is not fully captured on film due to camera speed vs. fire rate. Also you can gear a minigun down but that is not the reason for the difference in fire rate on the Stembridge minigun used on Predator and then Terminator 2--phoenixent 12:53, 19 December 2011 (CST)
- The Predator minigun wasn't running at full speed either, from everything I've heard on the subject. If it was you wouldn't be able to see the barrels turning when it fired (as I recall that was the reason the RoF was reduced to begin with, because the director thought it would look better on camera). Evil Tim 21:43, 19 November 2011 (CST)