Talk:XM214 Microgun

Hollywood Style?

I don't understand the reasoning about the ROF cut down to 1000-1200 rpms. The M249 and other LMGs have a cyclic rate of 7-900 or so, but that's just ideally. In the real world the max is 200/minute with barrel changes every minute--awkward to say the least in a vicious firefight. I suppose you could adjust the gas operation to near the cyclic rate, if you're willing to risk meltdown and/or the gun blow up in your face. That said, there must be something to having a wall of lead at 5 or 6 times the LMG rate. Especially in some urban combat situations. Even in 5.56mm, twenty shots a sec could probably stop dead any unarmored vehicle and toast its occupants. Since there are claims that the Hollywood microgun was tested and rejected, it must have something to do with the weight and clumsiness as well as firing technique, rather than the ROF. Maybe they could look at it again and consider the 4.7 caseless and a combination of electric reliability and gas operation to cut down on the mass.Mytg8 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the Hollywood M134 is that increased cyclic rates require bigger/heavier electric motors that draw more electricity which requires bigger/heavier batteries. Then there is the issue of torque from the increased rotational speed of the barrels. In the real world, you also have to factor in the weight of the ammunition. Either you carry the same amount as usual and run out 5 times faster, or you have to suffer under 5 times the weight, to fire the same amount of time.

Gas operation was tried with the M134's little known sibling, the XM133. However, you still need something to start the spinning of the barrels along with the operation of the ammo feeder/delinker. D.E. Watters 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the 5.56mm XM214 Six-Pack by G.E. was stripped down and tested years ago as a handheld. It was rejected for several reasons. The reported ROF was reduced during the test from 4000 to 1000/1200 rpm, which is still 5 or 6 times the rate of most LMGs and SAWs--its got to have a substantial effect on the battlefield. The page here says its little improvement over the cyclic rate of the M249 and was one reason for the cancellation of the project. I was just pointing out that it’s a big improvement of rate of fire that you can't get in MGs. Weight and awkward handling were probably the biggest reasons for the no-go. Gas operation--the Russians had 12.7 and 23mm gatlings operated solely by gas, AFAIK, and they were spun up to speed faster than the equivalent American models. Maybe they jammed and came to a halt easier than the U.S. guns. At http://www.montysminiguns.com/brian.htm there is a modern version of a handheld XM214--granted there is a big difference between a 5.56 NATO and a .22LR and the self-contained magazine is probably too small, but it appears to be doable.Mytg8 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought this would be a useful concept but i havent found anything else similar except the russian 4 barreled GShG 7.62 minigun. Besides, would an XM214 chambered in .30 carbine calibre provide similar effect to 5.56 or .22lr?.

User:Winky Bill 19:25PM, 4/10/2007 (UTC)

Most sources I remember reading had the XM214 listed as having a maximum cyclic rate of 10,000rpm, putting it as the modern record holder for the fastest automatic weapon aside from projects such as Metal Storm. This seems rather noteworthy, so it should be looked into. 76.176.85.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'Man-Portable' Minigun Substitutes

The miniguns in movies had thier rate of fire slowed down to less than 2,000rpm. A Hand-Held Minigun was believed to have been tested by Commandos in the 1970s but was found too bulky, clumbersome and hard to control so therefore the idea was dropped.

The likes of the German MG3 and the Spanish CETME Ameli is sometimes regarded as a 'Minigun' substitute having a high rate of fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EX STAB (talk • User:EX STAB 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

By whom? I've never seen a single source that has suggested that. -- Thatguy96 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images?

An image would be helpful...--Eddie 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)