Talk:M249 light machine gun

Proposal To Create New Article

I propose creating a new article for the FN Minimi 7.62 and Mk48 series of machine guns. While very clearly derivative of the M249/Minimi, the Minimi 7.62 is a rather larger machine gun intended for a different role. I tend to think of it like the Browning M2 and the Browning M1919 or the AR15 and the AR10. Although the same basic design, they are different guns with different intended uses. As such, they merit different articles. What do you guys think?SB Pete (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the Minimi was actually developed in 7.62x51mm NATO and then later scaled down to 5.56mm following small arms ammunition trends. It's one in the same weapon, FN designers simply recovered the original blueprints. The M1919 and M2 are different weapons, as are the AR-15 and AR-10. Not a simple caliber conversion as you state. 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I have heard that before but I don't see any mention of the 7.62x51mm original design of the minimi outside of discussion of the mk48/minimi7.62. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this original program could include some historical background into the minimi article?

On a different note, you are indeed right, none of these are simple caliber conversions, but they are all the same basic design scaled up or down. This seems to me VERY similar to the evolution of the AR actually. Originally designed as the AR10, then scaled down to the AR15 and XM16 prototypes, the M16 became the best known example. The AR10 is however experiencing a renaissance in both civilian and military uses (SR-25, etc.). The M2 (and indeed the .50BMG cartridge itself) is simply a scaled up M1919/M1917 design. The AR story seems very similar to what is happening with the minimi to me. I think the most logical thing would be to have a Minimi article serve as the master with the history of the design, then separate articles on the M249 and the MK48. As the MK48 serves the role of M60 and M240B designs, it is bound to have different uses, source material, articles about it, pictures, etc. What do you guys think?SB Pete (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose such a move. It tooks us months to consolidate all the Minimi variants into one page. We actually attempted to merge the M249 into the Minimi article at one point, but the community decided taht the American version was unique enough and had evolved into a seperate weapon system. On a side note, today's commercial AR-10s have almost nothing in common with Stoner's initial design. They are simply upsized AR-15s. The Mk 48 is a specialized weapon not intended to fulfill the role of a true GPMG like the M240 or M60. Koalorka (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing I need to add as well, there is a lot of history behind the AR-15 and the AR-10, and very little around the new 7.62 version. How much could you actually say in an article about the M249 in 7.62, and about the Mk 48? Really you'd end up with at best a start-class article, but more likely you'd have a stub. Also, please see WP:GUNS#Variants for the WikiProject Firearms guidelines on variants.--LWF (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name?

"Squad automatic weapon" is a U.S.-specific designation rather than a universally recognized class of weapon (in this case, the M249 would fall under the light machine gun category). I believe the page should be renamed to either "M249 SAW", "M249 Squad Automatic Weapon" or "M249 light machine gun". My choice would be to capitalize the current SAW abbreviation. Koalorka (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Any takers? Koalorka (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I had previously suggested that 'Squad Automatic Weapon' was a proper noun, but the reply was:

"Both of them are common nouns. If this gun was called the squad automatic weapons, and there were no SAWs, then it would be a proper noun and need capitalisation. Currently they are no different from the words machine gun, dog, cat, rock or plane.--Pattont/c 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)"

I believe that it is not a common noun; it is an official designation that is virtually exclusive to the M249. Hayden120 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is the only gun in the U.S. inventory that is called the SAW, a classification unique to the M249. We'll let Patton respond, but his previous argument is wrong. Koalorka (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A "light machine gun" is a relativlely light-weight machine gun that fires small calibre bullets and is typically operated by a single soldier. A "squad automatic weapon" is an assault rifle-calibre, light-weight automatic weapon organic to a small infantry unit that is used specifically for supressive fire. Light machine guns such as the M1919 Browning machine gun and Lewis Gun do not fit the definition of squad automatic weapon as they aren't used in that role (Both are inorganic and in some cases used on tanks). Similarly, Squad automatic weapons such as the planned Infantry Automatic Rifle cannot be considered light machine guns (The IAR is not a machine gun). There is a difference. "Squad automatic weapon" is also not a U.S.-speciofic designation: many armies use the terms "light support weapon" and "section autoamtic weapon", which is exactly the same as "squad automatic weapon". Also "squad automatic weapon" is not a proper noun; it is not the name of this weapon, but its type. --Patton^t/c 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what the U.S. decides to call it or what role it is intended to fulfull, the FN Minimi IS a light machine gun. They could specify a new battlefield weapon: a rifle-caliber entrenching tool organic to the platoon and adopt the FN Minimi for this purpose as the M567 Squad Automatic Entrenching Device, but it remains a FN Minimi which is a purpose-built light machine gun. Koalorka (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anybody cared, the M249 was FORMERLY known as the "Squad Automatic Weapon" and is currently described as a "Light Machine Gun". Not that I have an opinion one way or the other, just throwing that out there. FM 23-14 has a note in the Preface backing that up. Google it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough I read that manual while writing htis and never consciously took that in.--Patton^t/c 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the move was precipitous. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name states that the most commonly used name should be used for the article name. In this case, the M249 is known overwhelmingly as a squad automatic weapon, rather than a light machinegun. It may actually be both a SAW and an LMG, but the policy is clear. Now, if one desires to name something as an LMG, the article FN Minimi would suffice. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mogadishu 1993

I formatted and referenced the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) in the infobox under "wars". Question remains: does this interesting conflict qualify as important enough for the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Place of origin

i object to the "place of origin" discription. This is a belgian weapon, so why is it being called an american weapon? Can't americans admit that someone else designed a good weapon? does anyone have an objection to changing the "place of origin" to belgium? tyvm all

my apologies for using bold text, but somehow i wasn't able to convert it to normal text. if anyone can do so then please be my guest!.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 (talk)

While the M249 is clearly based off of the Belgian designed FN Minimi, the M249 was extensively modified in the US, and has become a series of weapons separate from the Minimi. So most of the design is Belgian, but there are many changes that make this a unique, American design. I wouldn't be opposed to having both the US, and Belgium as places of origin. — DanMP5 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just reverted by someone who claims it is a "U.S. military weapon". Now, I'm not disputing its existence in the U.S. inventories but the weapon's origin is in question. It was developed in Belgium and evaluated in the U.S. Early models were delivered straight from Belgium before a local subsidiary was setup in South Carolina. Koalorka (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the article says, anywhere. I am going strictly by the fact of the US Inventory naming convention (M249 vs. Minimi) to make the distinction. I would suggest sourcing the fact that they were manufactured in Belgium and delivered straight to the US military before the SC Plant was opened, as you state. I don't doubt you, but this is a featured article and demands better sourcing. also, this article is about the US Version, opening sentence:"The M249 light machine gun (LMG)... is an American version of the FN Minimi,"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to dig up a few sources and insert them into the page. Let me also remind you that we are discussing origin, not the American designation or the lead paragraph in this article. Do you deny the M249's Belgian heritage? Origin by definition refers to the point at which something came into existence or from which it derives or is derived. Koalorka (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all, just diferentiating that there's the original and this is the US version. Although, my original revert was due to me misreading "Origin" as "used by". My past as a boxer has unfortunately rendered me blind in my left eye and apologize if it's been having a poor effect on my reading/writing skills lately. FYI I happened to be a SAW gunner for 21 months while I was a Marine and loved that old pig like a brother, hated giving it up for the M203 when I was made Fire Team Leader, too!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SAW gunner

I added a {{clarify}} tag in the lead section. From the lead section: "This allows the SAW gunner to use rifleman's magazines". What is a SAW gunner? Please link to the appropriate article or rephrase so non-military-buffs can understand. 98.244.9.17 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the Marine Corps it's "Automatic Rifleman", but SAW Gunner, is the man who's job it is to fire the SAW, for all you non-military-minded folks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually tracked it down myself and tried to strikeout my comment on this talk page, but discovered that, yet again, my "highspeed" internet provider (who I won't name *cough*COMCAST*cough*) is actually providing less-than-dialup speed and it has taken far more time than I would prefer to respond. But thank you for your response anyway. 98.244.9.17 (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro: Not satisfied though there have been problems

From the third paragraph:

Soldiers are generally not satisfied with the weapon's performance, though there have been many reports of clogging with dirt and sand.

This needs review from someone knowledgeable about the weapon's performance and soldiers' collective feeling about the weapon.

If the soldiers are generally not satisfied, then it doesn't make sense to say "though." It would make more sense to say "because" or "for example."

However, I suspect that this was a typo and soldiers really are satisfied. Complex.confusion (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, that gerbil has been putting that in there all night.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've been looking at some of the sources and quite a few of them are wikipedia articles, also ref 41 isn't working I'm not quite sure what it's suposed to link to.

I sugest that some people look up the wikipedia articles that have been put as refs and find some external refs on them, this is because if you constantly ref wikipedia you may ref wikipedia articles which haven't been properly refed themseves.

only a sugestion.

BobMan801 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

err yep

BobMan801 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They're footnotes. They correspond to the Books in the reference section, if you hover over them you will see what looks like a wikilink, but it's a link to the same page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Browning Automatic Rifle

The article reads, in part:

"The Browning automatic rifle, the army's main individual machine gun since its introduction in World War I, was phased out in 1957 . . ."

I do not know exactly when the BAR was phased out, but they were standard weapons in the infantry battalions in the Marine Corps at least as late as 1959, when I served.

Colonel Mac

99.185.41.125 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note the use of "army's".--92.251.164.176 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)