Talk:M134 Minigun/Archive 1

Deletion links
I just went and deleted the M134 and GAU-17 links from this page, and I continue to suggest that those links be deleted because they are redundant. M134 is the Army's designation for the GAU-2B/A, they are the same weapon and should not have seperate pages. Likewise, though primarily used by the US Navy, GAU-17/A is a USAF designation, and the weapon is simply optimized for flexible use, and is very similar to the GAU-2B/A.

Also, someone added in the Gun Pods and Mounts section a mention of russian gatling weapons, which I think should be placed in the "See Also" section, because this is not simply a page about rotary machine guns.

GAU vs. GAUSE
Can someone verify the GAUSE-17 designation? What does that mean? I find it odd that the US Navy chose to use a modified USAF designation instead of giving the weapon a Mk/Mod designation. GAU-17/A is an Airforce designation, and as my table clearly shows these are all the same weapon more or less. The M134, GAU-2B/A, GAU-17/A, and even the XM196 are all variations of the same weapon. So far I found no references to GAUSE-17 beyond two USN released pictures.


 * --I suspect that this 'designation' is the product of a spell-check program balking at 'GAU'. --D.E. Watters 07:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the GAUSE is for ships and the GAU is for aircraft, and have not seen evidence otherwise. I do not think it was spell-checking problem, but I open to new sources. As for the merger, I agree 134 can go for now (I merged it in). As for the 17, I disagree it is redundant in the long term. This page in the long-run seems to crowded with pop-culture references and information about other variants. Giving a specific military weapon a dedicated page thats focused on its data and use has value, even if just for the sake of clarity. If people then want to learn about its impact on, say movies, then they can link to a general page. Im not real committed to having it either way currently though. Ve3 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My problem with this is that a specific page for the GAU-17/A shouldn't be any different from this one, the data is the same. There is at most an ROF difference.  The GAU-17/A is simply optimized for flexible use with the flash hider originally developed for the GAU-2 and can make use of the new delinking feeder, the MAU-201/A.  I see a greater lack of clarity of the wikipedia perpetuates the belief that all of these weapons are different and not simply minor subvariants of each other.  Also, I am interested to see what evidence you ""do"" have for the GAUSE designation, as I have no other than picture captions, which is a poor source in my opinion.  Thatguy96 16:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I guess the problem is how we define the weapon (maybe?). In this case, the core weapon is of course essentially the same, though the whole weapon system varies. I guess the question is if the pages are about a weapon system, or, just a key component of it. As a practical matter, I think we can make clear they are all variants, but not force people to into too unrelated a topic like their "use" in movies. As for the GAUSE thing, I have seen it in some other places, but nothing too definative. The Navy images used the naming again, and I did not have reason to question it. If you have read this is incorrect though I would be interested in that. Ve3 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * All services of the US military use specific designations for complete systems and component weapons. The GE Minigun is no different.  The GAU-17A and the GAU-2B/A are essentially identical, and the systems they are used in have different designations.  The USAF has a specific designation for the DAS used on the UH-1N, which is now still in use with the USMC.  The USN uses the GAU-17/A on the Mk 25 Mod 0 mount.  I don't have a designation for the complete system, but I would assume there is one since given the following example: the M242 25mm cannon is combined with the Mk 88 Mod 0 mount, to form the Mk 38 Mod 0 Armament System.  On the matter of GAUSE-17, I think we running into the inherent issue that there is no official information that says anything either way.  I take this as meaning its a misnomer, you obviously take this as there is a possibility that GAUSE-17 is correct.  Also, I just read your additions to the GAU-17/A page, which are just incorrect.  The GAU-17/A is the USAF designation, and the Navy is using that.  It is NOT a USN designation, they use the Mk/Mod system for systems they develop.  The gun systems between the GAU-2B/A are identical with the only possible exception being the a rate of fire differenece, and the ability of the GAU-17/A to use the new MAU-201/A delinking feeder.  The flash hider was originally developed for GAU-2B/As that were used as flexible door guns.  It is simply standard on the GAU-17/A.


 * Yea its all USAF des. (on that 'error'), that was a leftover from the old page I should have gotten rid of that sooner. I think you have hit the nail on the head here with the different systems, the major setups for the armament systems is some great material. I think if we can get more on the mounting systems and other technology, along with designations to be more clear (as you describe very well here) then that will really help clarify. To be honest this GAUSE thing is a real bitch to figure out short of just mailing the Navy. Given the situation, I made a note of the controversy to give people a heads up. For now I will keep on the look out for info on this mystery and let you know if I see anything. Ve3 22:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk from GAU-17 Minigun
The selectable rate of fire for this weapon is 2,000 / 4,000 rounds per minute. 6,000 rpm is the cyclic rate, and naturally the weapon doesn't have a designation allowing that fire rate.

I'd update this myself, but I'm on a military computer doing some research and I don't want to log in.

GAU-2 relation
I think it should be mentioned somewhere that the weapon is a variant of the GAU-2, and that the USAF uses both the GAU-2B/A and the GAU-17/A. This is the kind of thing that got into a counter editing battle last time, so I want to dicuss it first. These weapons are virtually identical in the gun and feeder assemblies. This page also makes it seem like this is solely a USN/USMC weapon, which is also incorrect. -- Thatguy96 13 June 2006 20:07

Talk from M134 minigun
Anyone else in favour of moving this to M134 minigun and making minigun redirect to that instead? Cheers, DarkLordSeth 03:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think we have enough material here to split the article into M134 minigun, Minigun and XM214 minigun. Some text may overlap. Any objections? Tronno 00:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the picture is of, but it is NOT an M134. The picture should be changed. Night Gyr 07:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

GShG-7.62 minigun
Was the GShG-7.62 ever used like the M134?, On doors, vehicles etc?. It only seems to be used on the wings on Mil 24 Hind. User:EX STAB 31 March 2007

Minigun/Vulcan Raven
In the section of Pop culture, there is a mention of a character from the video game: Metal Gear Solid; Vulcan Raven. It says that he carries a 20mm Vulcan Cannon, which is usually mounted on jet fighters. Whomever wrote this part is partially correct, but not entirely. Yes, Raven carries a Vulcan cannon, but it's actually a GAU-8/A Avenger. It's a 30mm externally powered Gatling gun. It's the one that's mounted on the venerable A-10 attack plane used by the U.S. Air Force. Just to give you an idea of how big 30mm is, just imagine something that's a little bigger around than a quarter. The gun itself has 7 barrels (although I noticed through subsequent playthroughs of Metal Gear solid, the CG cinemas reveal that it only has 6). It weighs around 620 lbs. and that's just the gun's dry weight. That's not including the ammo drum (that can hold 1150+ rounds), nor the linkless transport system for the bullets. It fires 4,200 rounds per minute (or roughly 70 rounds per second), has a muzzle velocity of 3,400 feet per second and creates 10,000 pounds of recoil force. It can also fire any mixed variety of either Armor Piercing Incindiary (API), or High Explosive Incindiary (HEI) rounds for combat applications. Also in the game, it doesn't show it, but the gun system is also powered by a hydralic drive system provided by the aircraft itself. Suffice it to say that even if Vulcan Raven was able to pick the whole thing up, there's no way in Hates he'd ever be able to fire the thing...but hey it's a video game right. If I remember correctly, the instruction manual actually says that he carries that gun too. Even if it doesn't, the only reason I know all of this is because I myself happen to be in the U.S. Air Force. My primary job is to load the weapons onto aircraft and for 6 of the 7 years that I've been in, all I've ever loaded weapons for is the A-10. So I know quite a bit about it and it's weapons components. If anyone else would like to see more on the A-10 or it's gun, just type in A-10 in the "search". Then click on the GAU-8/A Avenger to get all the specs, it's pretty cool. So in closing, I didn't want to bag on who wrote this originally, just to correct a minor factual error and to add a bunch of cool factoids. Hope everyone enjoys!

BF2
There a minigun on the Blackhawk helicopter on BF2 should a mention be made in the pop culture section?


 * Please stand corrected when Vulcan Raven states the name of the cannon as the M61a1, which fires a 20mm round and has a six barrels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.123.15 (talk • contribs)

Miniguns and Chainguns
What's the difference between a "minigun" and a "chaingun"? Both articles exist and seem to have similar definitions of what the weapon is. Neither article references the other. - SoulSkorpion 08:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rotary barreled weapons are not driven by a chain. Chain-driven weapons are not multi-barreled.  The two weapons share a rotary breach, and that's about it.  While in popular culture the terms are often used interchangably, the truth is that the systems are different and are not related to my knowledge beyond some design similarities.  Rotary barreled weapons trace their lineage back to the 19th century.  I'm guessing that chain-driven guns trace their lineage back to "revolver cannon" like the Mauser MG213C, when someone had the idea to take such a weapon and attempt to ramp the speed up by motorizing the mechanism instead of leaving it as it had been, powered by the weapon's recoil force or propellant gasses.  -- Thatguy96 10:17, 11 May 2006
 * Oh, right. Thanks for clearing that up. I've just noticed, on closer in spection of the chaingun article, that there is a section further down that mentions this after all. - SoulSkorpion 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, nearly all revolver cannon are gas operated...including the Mauser MG213C. --D.E. Watters 14:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * please note that the the first rotary barreled gun used in the US was by Thomas Gatling, and was hand- driven, with a chain. Interessting, isn't it? please note if i am wrong about this.

A Chaingun is single barreled and has a chain drive inside its mechanisim. Videogame producers probably used the 'Chaingun' term instead of Minigun since it may sound 'Cool' or havent got a clue about firearms.

A Minigun is a Minigun, NOT a Chaingun. Dont be fooled by those Videogames.

Meroka Machine Guns: An Alternative?
Are meroka type machine guns an alternative to a Gatling?, They seem to use a Combined Rate of Fire' and shoot in 'Salvo's. User:Jetwave Dave

M134D
Might want to put in some information on the Dillon Aero M134D which is an improvement of the old GE M134 design with a heavily modified delinking mechanism for greater reliability.

5.56x45mm Variant?
I seem to vaguely recall an experimental model in 5.56x45mm NATO during the Vietnam era.

If it did exist, it would be a good addition.
 * XM214 has its own wiki article, there's a link on the bottom of the page. If anything this article should just have a mention of it and link to that article.  -- Thatguy96 03:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe a blurb & link would do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

The XM214 Six-Pak was designed to be 'man-portable' but meaning easier to carry around on tripod.

'Man-Portable' Minigun Substitutes
The German MG3 and the Spanish CETME Ameli machine guns have been said to be substitutes for a Minigun since they have a rapid rate of fire.User:EX STAB 02:38PM 31 March 2007
 * Said by whom? I've never seen a single source that has suggested that, nor a military that has done that. -- Thatguy96 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no minigun capable of being used by a single person operationally. Movie props have been specifically created, but have all had severe restrictions on the users mobility (this is the case of the weapons used in the movies Predator and Resident Evil 2). -- Thatguy96 13:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the likes of the MG81 GPMG that fired at 1,500/1,600RPM. User:Jetwave Dave 01:57AM 18/05/07

Pop culture
There was the XM214 which is probably what Predator and terminator are based on, but unlike in the movie these weapons were never issued. I dont think the usage went far from some basic tests, the M214 weights over 80 pounds with 1000 rounds of ammunition. Even for a very strong soldier this is quite a lot to carry. I'm quite sure its weight issues that caused this concept being deserted.

XM214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.210.187 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

-The minigun variation usually seen being carried does exist. It is a 5.56 caliber weapon instead of the 7.62 caliber true "minigun". The regular GAU-2 weighs about 37lbs just by itself and ammunition comes in at approximately 130lbs per 1500rd can (roughly 160lbs minus a power source). I do not know what 5.56 ammo weighs per 1500rds sorry. I do know the "mini-mini" as i have heard it called is battery operated. Its very possible depending on the amount of ammo one was carrying and the weight of the battery pack that a mini-mini system would require that it could be carried man-portable style. That would assume the man isnt carrying 130lbs of ammo with it. It is highly unlikely it would ever be feesible and if the mini-mini has the torque a GAU-2 has when its being fired from the rotation of the barrels it would be impossible to hold in your hands and shoot.--Resqgunner (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

-***The movie never implies that miniguns are practical armament for ordinary soldiers. Everyone missed that the movie characters were supposed to be EXTRAORDINARY soldiers in terms of size and strength. Even they did not routinely carry the minigun one armed. Remember most the movie the minigun is carried on a body harness. Also Dutch only fires one relatively short burst holding it with one arm when ammo weight is down to a very short belt. That might be possible for a massive body builder. But nobody said anything about accuracy. ;)

From actor comments about the toughness of the movie shoot, its quite possible this was an actual minigun. Though I doubt it was loaded with real ammo, balance may have required a similar backpack weight. Can top body builders carry around 120-130 pounds of minigun and ammo? Sure. Like to carry it very far? No. So even for them a minigun is fantasy as a practical combat weapon...but it might be closer than you think.

I would be very interesting to know how the minigun firing special effects were done. I suspect they used blanks rather than CGI when actors were shown in second person. Which means Arnold really did fire a short burst of nearly real ammo from a mini-gun with one arm, though I doubt his fire would have been more than diversionary in accuracy in real battle. Also I bet the fire rate was turned down to minimum 400 round rate. The other minigun scenes all look a little like the movie used the first person view to allow firing from a stand below camera view point. Then they cut back to showing the actors from 2nd viewpoint with only a couple blanks loaded or otherwise showing the minigun idling down.to a stop without fire. Just seems vastly cheaper to shoot the scenes that way when you got the extra muscles. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong for the pop culture section to be as big as the rest of the article. I removed some of the less important references, per WP:Air. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't signed in at the time, it was me who removed Muscle Bound from the section in pop-culture as it would be unlikely that would be an accurate description of a soldier, as soldiers need to be highly mobile and would not have time to be spending hours a day at the gym.-Lehk 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Pop Culture section is so large only because there's a lot of self-insertion in there. Just give the facts, don't drag it on with how unrealistic it is! From reading the rest of the article (as the Pop Culture section is down at the bottom) readers should know how unrealistic these are. In other words, the Pop Culture needs clean-up. Colonel Marksman 00:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a minigun in one of the "Metal Gear Solid" games? Colonel Marksman 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You would be able to "cut down" a tree with any kinetic delivery system (such as a golf club). something like: "mass (thickness) of wood divided by time multiplied by muzzle energy/delivered mass. This should be reworded for accuracy. I'd do it myself but I have not seen the TV show in question. Any takers? 72.204.64.22 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Designation
From what I've found in Springfield Armory documentation, the designations XM133 and XM134 were originally used for GE's prototype miniguns during their development for the USAF. (The XM133 was effectively a gas-operated XM134. Its initial spin up was helped by a booster spring, but this was not dependable.) --D.E. Watters 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I've just heard the M134 and GAU-2B/A nomenclature tossed around as synonymous because there hasn't been any M134AX's to my knowledge and one would think that any improvements made by the USAF on their guns would've been carried over to US Army guns. I've been trying to figure out what the real differences are between the 3 USAF models for some time now with little success.  --Thatguy96 11:59, 14 May 2006

-The variations are listed as GAU-2A, GAU-2B, GAU-2C. The real difference from the A and C models is in the aft gun support. The C variant has a clutch mechanism that allows it to interface and engage the feeder which supplies the ammunition from the chute, delinks it, and places it into the bolts that ride in the rotor assembly. Mounted to the clutch assembly is the gun control unit (GCU). The GCU is what has the triggers and intercom button. The A model simply has whats listed as an aft gun support which is a nub that extends from the weapon. - As for its rate of fire; currently and since its use as a GAU-2C, the weapon has two triggers, one is 2000rds and one is 4000rds per minute, reffered to as low rate and high rate. The weapon is capable of firing 6000rds per minute but only when attached to a hydraulic drive system. Currently the Dillon Aero model has two triggers but they only fire at 3000rds per minute.--Resqgunner (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal (GAU-17 into this article)
I'm reviving this discussion based on new information. From the language in OPNAVINST 8000.16B, Volume II, no major distinction is made between the GAU-2B/A and GAU-17/A beyond the latter being intended for helicopter door gun applications. This plus the fact that the similarities between the two weapons have created a large amount of duplicate information and no real ability to expand the GAU-17 article beyond its limited scope, I propose merging that article back into this one. The appropriate pages of the instruction can be found here-- Thatguy96 17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don´t you think that merging "GAU-2B/A" and "GAU-17/A" is a better idea than merging them into this article?  --   Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ... _ ΞΞΞ_     .   --  5:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC-6)


 * I second that. The minigun article deals about miniguns in generals while the GAU-17/A is a specific type of minigun. Suggesting to merge this into minigun would be the same as merging all types of assault rifles into the assault rifle article.--Fogeltje (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Minigun is a specific weapon, the article treats it as such. The comparison between "Minigun" and "assault rifle" is based on the popular culture tendency to reference all rotary barrel machine guns as miniguns.  The source I trotted out for this arguement last time was that of Jane's Weapon Systems 1985-86 where only the GE weapon was referred to as a "minigun" and the 12.7mm Yak-B was referred to as a rotary barrel machine gun.  I believe a popular culture section in this article is needed to address this, because Minigun is not a type of weapon, it is a manufacturer's name that applies to only one weapon.  From the introduction to this article: "Specifically, the term Minigun refers to a single weapon, originally produced by General Electric."  This article does not deal with all rotary barrel machine guns like the assault rifle article deals with all assault rifles. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Minigun und Gatling gun
Earlier, someone has explained the diference bewqeen chaingun and minigun, but what about the gatling gun? Is there a significative diference between minigun and gatlin gun? --  Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ... _ ΞΞΞ_     .   --  6:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC-6)
 * The first sentence of the article: "The Minigun is a multibarreled machine gun with a high rate of fire (several thousand rounds per minute), employing Gatling-style rotating barrels and an external power source." A minigun is a modern machine gun that uses a Gatling-type arrangement.  -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand, if that what you´re saying is a minigun, then what is a gatling gun? --   Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ... _ ΞΞΞ_     .   --  2:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC-6)
 * The original Gatling Gun, named for its inventor Richard Gatling, used a rotary barrel arrangement. The General Electric "Minigun" is a modern incarnation of the Gatling Gun, using an external power source rather than a manual crank.  The term "Minigun" is used in popular culture as a synonym of Gatling Gun, itself a specific term made more general, both terms generally describing any weapon with a rotary barrel arrangement.  However, the terms Minigun and Gatling Gun technically refer only to those specific weapons.  -- Thatguy96 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To get things straight, Gatling Guns and Miniguns are both examples for rotary barrel machine guns? Just checking if I understand it correctly. If so, referring to the subsection above, I think the merge should be carried out as I clearly misinterpreted the term "Minigun".--Fogeltje (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the most technical of terms, the nouns "Gatling Gun" and "Minigun" refer only to those specific weapons. Gatling Gun has entered the lexicon as a term used to describe all weapons with a rotary barrel arrangement.  Minigun has also come into that usage.  However, the term Minigun outside of popular culture is only used to describe the 7.62mm member of GE's rotary barrel family.  If the merge described above is conducted, I think the article should also be renamed to clarify this as well. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Careful here. A lot of those technical terms that ONLY mean this gun or that gun -- are specific to specific national military training programs. The above is I am sure correct for Americans. But I am willing to bet the terminology is probably not even NATO wide given how each nation tends to like to credit different national inventors for basic gun technologies.


 * LOL - US Marines even have a humorous marching song to distinguish between "...this is my rifle; this is my gun...". Yes a lot of those technical definitions are made for training in discipline and expediting service specific communication. In fact these technical definitions often mean a lot less to those without affiliation to that specific armed service. But then the US military is taught to never back down, so I assume members and former members will continue to push their view on arms terminology to the whole world.


 * Plus keep in mind that minigun is actually slang where ever you encounter the term. Also technically Gatling guns are not a rotatory barrel system as the breach and firing chamber rotate as a unit with the barrel. Furthermore, abandoning military training programs, you find that from an engineering and scientific viewpoint the chaingun and gatling gun use the same operating principle, but the chaingun is a weight saving variant that rotates only the firing chamber.


 * My point being wikipedia is NOT a military training program 69.23.124.142 (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name change
I think the name of this article should be modified in order to better describe the focus of the article on the GE Minigun rather than the popular culture concept of "Minigun." -- Thatguy96 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The popular culture use can be adressed within the article for further clarification. Would you be willing to do that? You obviously have much more knowledge on this subject. --Fogeltje (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to do it, but I think I'm going to wait until there's more time for people to respond. This article actually was "M134 Minigun" in the past, and there has been some warring over the popular culture section as well, which led to it just being outright removed.  I will look into adding some references and citations to this article in the meantime. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. I have no further knowledge of the history of this article but your suggestion seems the right way to approach this issue.--Fogeltje (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree! GE hasnt actually made a minigun for quite some time. The weapons still in service are being phased out through attrition because GE no longer makes parts or supports them.  Once a gun has a major flaw it goes to WRALC where they attempt to fix it and if they cant it gets Demilled.  Dillon Aero now owns the patents and they are the ones actually making all the new improvements and parts.  If you want to retitle the page as it refers to the weapon named minigun thats great but leave GE off of it because if you dont you are really limited to the minigun only up to the early-mid 90's.  Mini's have been used extensively in several wars since then with great success and i would not want their future details and nomenclature to fall to obscurity.--Resqgunner (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation example in the popular culture section
Okay, this has been reverted twice by separate unregistered users and I just want to get a consensus on why this example is apparently not productive. I think its a good example of how far the term has come in the lexicon, is cited, and is notable for the purposes of explanation in the overall context of the revised popular culture section. I'm willing to leave it out with good reason, but in neither case has a reason of any kind been provided. Thoughts? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly reasonably to include for the reason you specified here. It's a perfectly good example of incorrect usage of the word in popular culture. Any editor reverting the change should state a reason. I see no reason why not revert the deletion of this.--Fogeltje (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rate of Fire
According to Garwoods's own spec page, and a note in Mark Bowden's discussion about his Black Hawk Down series, where a pilot corrects his initial statement of 6,000/rpm (see question #13), I think we should change the number to 4,000, unless some definitive (and verifiable) source supporting the 6,000 claim can be found. --Frescard (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The earliest claimed cyclic rate for the Minigun was 6,000rpm. Jane's Infantry Weapons and other sources have listed this for many years.  However, for reliability reasons, most applications are throttled back.  Current Dillon M134D run 3,000rpm or so. D.E. Watters (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's sort of what I suspected. All the quotes with the high rate seem to be rather old, so that information may have been based on some overly optimistic, pre-release PR statements. But then, once it was actually put into use, they realized that this rate wasn't really realistic, and it was henceforth throttled to 4,000. --Frescard (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not in every case though, because the stated ROF for the M18A1/SUU-11B/A gun pods was selectable between 3,000 and 6,000. Most helicopter applications were maxed out at about 4,000 RPM though, and have the lower selectable fire rates of 2,000 or 4,000 that was found on the M18/SUU-11A/A pods.  The first pods and the original mountings were apparently fixed at the max rate of 6,000 RPM, but as was noted this changed pretty quickly.  The original TAT-102A turret for the AH-1G was selectable between 1,300 and 4,000, and the M28 series did the 2,000-4,000 split.  The M21 system for the UH-1 was apparently 2,400-4,000.  4,000 seems very much to be the employed max, but I'm wary of changing the max number since 6,000 is generally quoted as a theoretical maximum.  Its a confusing thing, maximum rate of fire, for a weapon whose rate of fire is so controllable depending on how fast the rotors as spun. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The real limitation is the feeder/delinker. In addition, with some high capacity ammo boxes, you'll need a booster as well. D.E. Watters (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... The "theoretical maximum" is not really meaningful if nobody is actually utilizing it (is that like the theoretical maximum speed of 200mph my '86 Escort can reach - if I'm going down Mt.Everest with tail wind and steel tires?).
 * Also, just because some publications may have claimed the 6,000 number in the past doesn't mean it's still valid. The one official spec I could find (by Garwood) stated 4,000, so I'm changing the article to that now. If somebody can find a current spec that lists the 6,000 as an actual, used rate, then we can change it back. But since for now it doesn't seem to exist, we'll have to stick with verifiable data for WP. --Frescard (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well what I should've said was still quoted as a theoretical maximum. It was a known and used maximum.  While attaining 200 mph in your '86 Escort may be dependant on optimum conditions, an GE Minigun does not require optimum conditions to run at this rate.  That it severely increases component wear is a seperate issue, and this was still being listed as the high ROF for the SUU-11B/A gun pod even after pods using lower ROFs had been developed.  Whether or not it is still used is irrelevant since it has been used, in my opinion.  I've changed the ROF box to reflect that the 4,000 is more of a generally accepted "practical" maximum. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to confuse matters further, I just found the Military Specification document for the M134: MIL-M-45920. It mentions a high rate and a low rate for acceptance testing.  The high rate is 6,000 to 6,400 rpm, and the low rate is 2,000 to 2,500. D.E. Watters (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to that document, but it seems that this is the old spec that was floating around for a while. After all the document you're mentioning is from 1999, and seems to be cancelled (at least according to this site. --Frescard (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The cancelation appears to be of a specific amendment to the Mil-Spec. The notice reads "MIL-M-45920 Interim Amendment 2, dated 8 May 1990, is hereby canceled without replacement." Amendment 2 had nothing to do with the cyclic rate.  D.E. Watters (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A quickie search found the January 2007 copy of "Department Of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards." MIL-M-45920 is listed as still active. (The document also listed inactive and canceled Mil-Specs separately.) FWIW: Garwood doesn't appear to have any DOD contracts, so their M134 are not necessarily tested to the Mil-Spec.  D.E. Watters (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The gun can fire at 6000rds per minute. Yes the feeder/delinker is a LIMFAC.  That said if the weapon is a GAU-2A (no clutch-no feeder) that would mean with the hydraulic motor installed the weapon could cycle pre delinked ammo at 6000Rds per minute. The GAU-2C (has a clutch, requires the feeder/delinker), has a gun control unit with 2 triggers, 2000 & 4000 rds per minute.  Dillon aero's GCU only fires 3000rds per minute. The GAU-2 much like the M-61A1 (which is hydraulically operated/linkless system) will fire 6000rds per minute but we do not mount them with hydraulic drive motors in a linkless system today. For helicopter use the weapons are either driven by AC power or trickle charge DC power systems.  This application employs the GAU-2C, requires the feeder/delinker and is fired between 2000-4000rds per minute.--Resqgunner (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationalization
Originally, there were (at least) two articles: Minigun, and M134 Minigun (later moved to M134 minigun). I'd like to propose restoring the M134 minigun page, but possibly moving it back to M134 Minigun or another title, depending on consensus. My reasoning is that this page realy deals with two topics: the M134 Minigun family, and the concept, history, and use of the word "minigun" in general, and in popular culture in particular. As noted above, this has been done before, but was reverted, apparantly with no discussion the last time. This page would also serve as an overview page to the other guns labled "miniguns", including the M134 variants and offshoots that have there own pages. Comments? - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Minigun is a manufacturer term outside of popular culture. To refer to any other weapon besides the General Electric product is technically inaccurate (see my citation referencing Jane's Weapon Systems).  There is only one official Minigun offshoot, and that's the XM214.  The Gatling Gun article properly covers rotary barreled weapons, and if not it should be done there, not on this page in my opinion.  Also, I think the popular culture element is properly covered here, in about as much depth as is necessary (If you disagree feel free to add more, but I think to add more would just be to provide additional examples).  I just don't think that there's enough to support a purely Minigun in popular culture article without it becoming a list of trivia that the popular culture section of this article used to be.  I would support renaming this article to "General Electric Minigun" rather than getting into the confusion and parallel designations of the weapon.  Just my opinions. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and would support moving to General Electric Minigun, if there's no support for splitting. However, it is usual practice in MILHIST it have US at there military designation, not a company name, usually the designation of the largest or oldest model. I know the Minigun is unique in that there seems to have been several concurrent models with different service designations.

Question, is GE still the manufacturer/rights holder of those models? The Gatlings were sold, eventually to GD; I don't know if that's the case here or not, but we should make sure, if just to get the history right.

As to pop-culture, I am for banning all of it on WP until hades freezes over! But until it's banned, I prefer to keep it as short and tight as possible, coverbng only notable item. I'm certianly not proposing a pop-culture page - the delete-nazis would AfD it in short order anyway! The problem here is that most of the p-c is related to generic "miniguns", not the M134 "Minigun" family. Given the back and forth of names and titles, splits and mergers thet the Minigun family has been though, I'd like to see a consensus on how this should be, going to MILHIST for a brader involvement if we need to. I know you've done alot to reorganize the topic, and I'm not criticizing the work you did. I just think a few things can be handled differently to clarify the situation, make it less confusing, and try to prevent further back-and-forth moves by building a consensus.

Also, yes, "Minigun" is the manufacuturer's name for the gun family, but that doesn't exclude is use or misuse for other weapons, nor make such uses illegitimate )though it may well be in copyright terms). After all, which of us has never called a Toshiba copier a "Xerox" machine? To emphasize that, we could use "minigun" as the title (using the lowercase template). - BillCJ (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh if the M134/GE Minigun article was split off would the GAU-17/A go in there or stay here? For a split it depends on how real content remains here.  Needs to be a good bit more than the pop culture section for sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to the various questions posed: (1) The original designation was in the US Army's system I believe and was M134. (2) GE nor GD holds the rights. There are a number of manufacturers now, Dillon Aero being the biggest, which recently secured the contract to provide the weapons to be fitted to the various V-22 variants to be fitted with defensive armament.  (3) I think the page has been pretty normalized as of late.  Since its been refocused and reworded there haven't been any serious pushes to split portions or otherwise rename it, beyond clarification purposes.  Also, none of the Minigun subvariants deserve a separate article in my opinion.  I just merged the GAU-17/A article into this one today. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you merged the GAU-17/A article here today. Why do you think we're having this discussion? :) In Oct 2007, you here, but there was no concensus. Being bold is fine, but don't be surprised when people disagree with you. My other option was to simply revert your merge as non-consensual, but I usually only do that to newbies or jerks - neither of which you are! - or to boneheaded decisions.

Jeff, I'm proposing a glorified DAB page that gives some overview to the history, and a place for the pop culture, which is non-specific to variants for the most part, and anything else that's not variant-specific that would end up dulpicated on all the other articles. But not accidents and incidents - no E-3 crashes here! ;) BillCJ (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll assume its because I'm tired that I'm coming off as combative. Its honestly not my intention.  I'd held off after proposing the merger and hadn't seen any reasons of merit not to in five months (in fact, there were a total of two responses, one of which was a comment, and the other of which was rescinded).  I honestly didn't feel like I was going against the consensus.  I guess I can see how it might seem that way.  I would be in favor of what you suggest. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The GAU-17 move was a good one in my opinion. Just wondering where it would fit in with the proposed moves.  I didn't realize it was a M134 variant too. Thanks.  I'll try to help whichever way you all want to go with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's just one of the many issues I've spent many years now trying to completely sort out. That's just something that will either eventually become apparent or not heh.  The US Army has used the same designation throughout (M134).  The USAF has gone through two subvariants (GAU-2A/A and GAU-2B/A) and a whole separate model (GAU-17/A).  The GAU-2/A and GAU-2B/A have both been linked in official literature to the M134 designation.  The GAU-17/A is its own separate thing, but appears to just be specific to pintle mount setups and from factory with the improved delinking feeder.  The single actual Navy designation (Mk 25 Mod 0, plus the complete system designation Mk 44 Mod 0, which I don't even mention in the article at the moment heh) plus a designation I just stumbled upon (M323) are even less clear.  I have speculated that M323 could in fact be a US Army designation for the GAU-17/A, but I've only seen it referenced in official Australian literature.  You see how confusing this gets quickly hehe?  Its why I put the tables in there in hopes of clarifying it at least based on what I know for sure. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add on here, I've just done some more searching and there seems to be GAU-2C and C/A and M134A1 designations floating around, as well as, Dillon Aero claiming that the M134D was adopted with that designation to replace the US Army's GAU-2C...so as you can see the who family has some serious identity issues ;) -- Thatguy96 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question re history
Would it be appropriate to include the "motor guns" first developed in late World War One and manufactured between the wars in the History section of the Minigun page? These were (usually) twin-barreled machine guns with very high rates of fire for their time, powered from an aircraft's engine. Salmanazar (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Video Games
Another common misconception prevelant in video games (eg. Team Fortress, Fallout series) is that that Mini-Guns can be carried ready to be fired in one's hands, which is nearly impossible and impractical.

I think I've just repeated a previous statment I misread, but I'm not terribly sure. Delete it if you see fit, or tell me is its allright.

--James Brown Monster, 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbrownmonster (talk • contribs)

Etymology?
Any ideas on how the word came about? Especially with it being called a minigun and being anything but miniature. --81.107.219.203 (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Minigun versus M-134 et el.
The M-134 (et el) is one type of minigun. ¿Why then does the article act as if that’s the “only” type of minigun? One easy example is the XM-214. The Russian answer is the GShG-7.62. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.68.186 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Users section
As it is, the Users section is totally unsourced. We need to find sources for the users or remove them. I will start doing some research. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am serving now for almost ten year in the German Armed Forces and I can state that we do not use the M134 or any other Gatling-style gun. We used the M61 at the F-104 and F-4. But up to now, we never used the Minigun, not on ships, planes, helicopters or armored vehicles. So Germany can be deleted from the user-list. 137.193.113.42 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, neither am I aware of any system used by German forces, that makes use of the M134. I will remove it from the list. If someone objects, I would appreciate a source or at least a clearly specified system, that mounts this gun. Para-OZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Legality
I realize this sounds stupid, but shouldn't it's legality in places be mentioned?

I know the ones made prior to 1986 are in the US, for example. 69.132.79.61 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture section clean up.
Any thoughts on drastically trimming back the Popular culture section per WikiProject_Firearms? I could see retaining the reference to Predator (1987) and the fact that it was appeared in numerous films and video games. Anything beyond that seems unnecessary. -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Except that mentioning it's appeared in various movies and video games isn't necessary. Do we put that at the hammer article? The police officer article? It's simply not an informative thing to say. Media by necessity imitates human experience, and it's an obvious expectation that everything we interact with will appear in some form of media. Mentioning that isn't useful. Mintrick (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was already trimmed a good bit a few days ago. If the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs can be trimmed also that's be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about removing the third paragraph regarding Mythbusters and leaving the remaining two. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st (Talk 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-purposed the section along more encyclopedic lines. Rather than attracting a bunch of works with unknown and uncited importance, the section now revolves around actual popular (mis)perception. Mintrick (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. It looks a lot better.  I still think the Mythbusters thing should go as it is only tangentially related.  The reference to the film Predator (1987) was, at best, borderline.  I think it might be noteworthy, though don't have any particular problem with removing it along with the others. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, great idea. Why not just delete the entire article too, or better yet.. the entire Wikipedia-site? "Then it would all look very neat and pretty, and we can enjoy our tiny winegums in tranquility whilst we delete everything we touch". I came on this article to read about this specific weapon's usage, to see if it was actually this gun they had used in the film Predator, but since you guys had the reference completely deleted, I had to go to the discussion-board to find out the truth. God damn it, it annoys the hell outta me, that some people are so preoccupied with "tidying things up", that they remove USEFUL FACTS, just to make things LOOK NEAT. What is this, an encyclopedia or a knitting-club? Seriously.KnatLouie (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Regardless of how it looks, the minigun is NOTABLE in popular culture. That alone makes it worth it to have the section in. 24.154.119.139 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have to add it in myself, but seeing as how everybody in this section is in support of the predator refernce, I will add it if nobody else does soon unless there is oppostion in the meantime. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Last chance. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep out. Unless you have references which show signs of particular notability, such as mention isn't worth the merit. Per pop culture guidelines, there "..should not be a list of appearances but should be a source actually showing increased fame or notoriety because of the appearances." ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  02:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to M-134 Minigun reverted
A user moved this article to M-134 Minigun without discussion. I reverted that move. Also, the M134 designation is just the Army's and does not include a dash. There are also XM196, GAU-2, and GAU-17/A variants covered here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we move it anyway? The name "Minigun" isn't appropriate for a single weapon or small family, the Russians etc. have miniguns too. Change it to M134 Minigun but add a variants section with those three. 202.156.14.98 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the section of this talk page called "Rationalization." This is not the first time this has been discussed.  Minigun is appropriate for the family of GE weapons. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you move it, it would need to have a consistent title which is accessible. The US Navy refer to this as the Mk77 minigun. The Royal Navy refer to this as the Mk44 Minigun. They are all essentially the same group of weapon, but tying the page to an inappropriate designation wouldn't be the correct thing to do 90.221.104.131 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NZ as user
Can anyone one provide a citation as to the NZ use. Not saying it's wrong, just that I've never heard it.Falcon5nz (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Which versions ?
Which versions do the Georgian Armed Forces use ? I saw pictures of miniguns mounted on Mi-8 combat helicopters for the door gunner. They also use it for the "Didgori-2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.109.1 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparison Section
Should there be a section on how various manufacturers have differentiated the Minigun? E.g: The design, RPM and other optional specifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.51.38 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would argue that manufacturer variant Minigun designs/derivatives aren't notable unless they've actually been adopted on a significant scale. On that basis, the Garwood info should be removed from the article; it really is just an ad for their version, which no one actually uses. --DesiArcy (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dillon Aero
This article is about the minigun, There's nothing substantive about the company itself. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I've completed this. The material at Dillon Aero was substantially identical to what's here, so I deleted it there. That leaves the company article focused on the company. Rezin (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support transferring the Minigun details from the Dillon Aero to this article. I think there should be enough to justify the company article, though it may be short. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The company article was short before the minigun info was added. The text from the minigun article has details that are important to the company's history. America789 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point. Then merge the detailed text and leave a shortened version there so things make sense. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Users
Germany does not use the Minigun. Not on ships, aircrafts or any (un-)armored vehicles. 77.47.33.170 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

UK CNC uses the Minigun on ships — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everybodyswillyisaspeedboat (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Germany is back on list of users. But still, it is totally wrong. The German Bundeswehr does not use anyhow the M134. 87.179.86.99 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Cannon"
The context of the first paragraph is clearly comparing rifle caliber with autocannons, especially since it's comparing rotaries. --Trifler (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been my understanding that 20 mm is general cutoff between gun and cannon. That may or may not be completely accurate.  20 mm caliber mentions this but without supporting reference(s). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your definition is incomplete. The primary aspect is that it must fire shells and not bullets. 20mm is the generally accepted cut-off for autocannons, but the Germans did have a 15mm aircraft autocannon in WW2. The definition is listed under the autocannon article.
 * In this particular paragraph, we're only discussing rotaries, so a regular cannon is not part of the discussion. If that last part about "gun" was all by itself, then you might have a point, but it's not. --Trifler (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not say that was my definition and I supplied another independent example of it with the 20 mm page. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok? I only used "your" to mean the definition you provided.
 * I edited the article to try to remove any possible confusion, based on what you've said. Can we call it good? --Trifler (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's good. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool. Glad we worked it out. --Trifler (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Garwood version
I've removed advertising material written in POV language. All I could do was leave a basic stub regarding this minigun variant. Please feel free to reintroduce factual and historical information about this piece of hardware and its military application. Please do not simply revert the previous version or the advertising banner will be reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Minigun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614202850/http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Split%20Breech.htm to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Split%20Breech.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204191618/http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aawpns.htm to http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aawpns.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309192408/http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en to http://geo-army.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

History Section Manufacturer Cleanup
I have some issues with the way the history section is currently laid out. Having a "Garwood Industries minigun" and a "Dillon Aero minigun" section listed under the "History" seems inappropriate at best. These manufacturers are not "historic," and the arguably most prolific historic manufacturer (GE) isn't even listed. I think the "history" section should be driven by decades and/or major historic conflicts like "Minigun: 1960s–Vietnam."

The subsections discussing each manufacturer's specific design modifications and innovations would be more appropriate listed under "Design and Variants."

As a result, I propose splitting up the "Dillon Aero minigun" subsection into historic & design content. The subsection that remains under "history" should then be re-named to an appropriate year/conflict period. The entire "Garwood Industries minigun" subsection can be moved to design as I don't see anything obviously related to the history of the weapon there.

If anyone has issues or objections to this plan please let me know. I see that there has been a lot of passionate back and forth about these sections in the history. So, I'm putting this up this post several days before I start editing the article as an act of "good faith." That way, anyone who is interested or concerned has chance to comment or provide feedback before any changes occur. We'll also have a place to further discuss this issue after the changes are made. RajanPB (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minigun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625195324/http://users.bigpond.net.au/minigun/specs.htm to http://users.bigpond.net.au/minigun/specs.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021425/http://www.pureluckdesign.com/videos/Gau17animation.wmv to http://www.pureluckdesign.com/videos/Gau17animation.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minigun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203010642/http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg69-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg69-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Manufacturers
I believe we should remove "DeGroat Tactical Armaments" listed under "manufacturers" because their website states "We sell original GE 7.62mm Miniguns, which have been rebuilt by us." So they are repairing, rebuilding, and servicing existing GE weapons not manufacturing entirely new weapons... http://www.armamentsales.com/miniguns.htm

I also think we should remove "McNally Industries" listed under "manufacturers" because their website states they make "M134 Mini Gun System Components." Like DeGroat they do not appear to be making new or complete weapons. McNally appears to be a supplier for M134 parts. http://www.mcnally-group.com/mcnallyindustries/products/ordnance-systems The only McNally press release I found from them regarding the M134 also supports this as it identifies them as a strategic partner of a M134 manufacturer; Profense. http://www.mcnally-group.com/mcnallyindustries/about/news/mcnally-industries-llc-and-profense-llc-enter-strategic-partnering-agreement-produce-m134

RajanPB (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the McNally reference. USMC had parts support well after G.E. ceased support, all the way up to Dillon systems reaching the fleet. rm975 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Title
Minigun is generic designation. This page specifically refers to the M-134 / GAU-2 / GAU-17 system. Should this page then not be title "M-134 / GAU-2 / GAU-17"? rm975 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Minigun is the term GE created specifically when designing the 7.62 x 51mm, 6 barrel, M-134. So I disagree that it is generic. Perhaps using both would avoid mistakes or misinterpretation? For example, the wikipedia article on maverick missiles is named the "AGM-65 Maverick." updating the title of this article to "M-134 Minigun" would probably be appropriate. RajanPB (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)