Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/M249 light machine gun

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

I just improved this article to good article status, and I intent to get it o A-class and eventually featured. As I have no experience of writing articles that good I would like some advice telling me how to improve the article. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments.--Patton^t/c 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

I don't know much about firearms, but this article looks to be in pretty good shape. My suggestions for changes are:

• "It was decided that an individual machine gun lighter then the M60 firing 6 mm ammunition would be an advantage." - why was this decided, who made the decision and when did they do so?
• Did the 10kg weight specified include the weight of 200 rounds of ammunition?

Yes, I've clarified that.

• It seems odd that the US Army requested bids for this gun in 1969, but it wasn't introduced until 1984 despite being an existing design(?). Could you explain what happened with with the gun during the 1970s? (eg, did a low priority get placed on it due to the demands of the Vietnam War?)

I can't find any sources that explain what happeend in the intervening years, unfortunatly...

• The impact of withdrawing the BAR should be mentioned at the start of the history section - its a bit out of place where it is

Ok I've done this

• The para which begins 'Reception was mixed' should specify who this reception was from at all times (eg, was this a formal survey of M249 operators, the views of US Army experts, or anecdotal evidence from operators?). Phrases like 'Some claimed' are considered weasel words, and should be avoided if possible.

It was general comments from operators. I think I've clarified this in this in the article.

• The 'Feedback' section seems out of place given that there's also discussion of how the weapon was received in the history section. It might make sense to combine these into a single 'reception and combat performance' section or which covers the weapon's initial reception and how it has performed in combat or place all this material in the history section

Yes that might be an idea. I was reluctant to do it originally as the bit in the history section is more general comments wheras the "feedback" section is mainly formal surveys.

• It would be interesting to explain the differences between the variants of the weapon - where these in response to the flaws which became aparant after it was introduced?
• The 'future' section needs more context - for instance, why is the USMC planning to operate a mix of SAWs rather than buy new M249s like the Army? (will the different guns be issued to different types of unit?) Who's Colonel Robert Radcliff, is this his personal opinion or that of the Army (and is this final?), and why does the difference in squad sizes explain why the USMC and Army have different requirements?

Clarified. It's on behalf of the army. That whole seciton si much less like a news report now...

• The photo caption which reads "The M249 SAW was issued to troops during the Gulf War in 1991" implies that these soldiers were first equipped with the gun when they deployed in 1991 and that the process of equipping the Army with the weapon wasn't complete at this stage - is this correct?

No I just came up with a crazy caption which implies that lol. No most squads were equipped as soon as it was introduced. Have changed the caption.

• Information on how the M249 compares to other contemporary SAWs would be interesting (the fact that the Minimi is used by dozens of countries suggests that it's an excellent weapon). Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will look for sources on how it compares to other SAWs now. I will add it to the design section. Thanks for the review Nick.--Patton^t/c 13:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)