Jump to content

Talk:M240 machine gun/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The type of disintegrating metal link used with the M60 should not be included in the lead section. The lead section generally describes the subject of the article, and the M13 link is the kind of specific information that should be added somewhere else in the article. Additionally, it is not a component of the machine gun per se, and any other ammunition link for the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge can be used in the same function. The belt is not an integral part of the weapon, and the model/type used may vary. —Squalla 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The M240 only works with the M13 link and is integral to how it functions internally. Other 7.62 belt systems did not work (unless it is simply re-dsignation of the M13 link design). That said, I agree the information can be more concise for introduction. Ve3 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the MAG can use practically any NATO-standardised link; you just need to swap some parts in the feed mechanism. This is often done in situations like aircraft mounts, where it is undesirable to spray links all over the place. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct U.S Military name

The correct designation is with Machine Capitalized, that is the primary source and according to wikipedia guidlines it must respected.Ve3 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the discussion I directed you to, there are several reasons for the generally agreed naming convention. From previous experience with you, I will not revert your moves again, as I am sure you will revert them before reaching any agreement. —Squalla 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I did read the discussion (I just prefer the U.S. military standards), this is all resolved now though. Ve3 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hurray for Army standards. And let me tell you the M240B is the finest bullet launcher us ground pounders use. Ultratone85 14:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to correct one thing: the M240 is not "based" on the FN MAG, it *IS* the FN MAG.

Merge into FN MAG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus here to merge M240 article to FN MAG. -fnlayson (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The M240 is a dirivaed of the FN MAG. you would have like say a south koren version of a m16 join into the normal m16 artical.(i dont no if they use m16 its just 1st country i could think of. based on thousands of firearms articals that have direvetes in differnt countrys, they go to the place of origin. Based on this itshould be merged. yes some mgiht say this may give more google results or osme very unrelible source for it being the same. and this gun isnt referd to the m240 al alround the world as m240.comon the origanl gun has less info tghen this has(Esskater11 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

  • FOR the M240 is only a name. The weapon that this refers to is an american build MAG 58. I feel that the same goes for the M249 page, the weapon there is the FN Minimi. But if all the american soldiers out there wish to keep a page for there own weapons I would recommend that they start sighting their sources. There are charts in the article that seem nice and convincing but I have no clue where they came from (EX. The chart about testing the mag 58 against other guns, where did the numbers come from?) Or just the breakdown of all the different variants, sure it is nice to know, and yes you might have been taught them all when you went through basic, but unless you took a note down about what the pam you got that info from that information does not meet the wiki policy for submission. Wikipedia is not a publishing house for first hand research, cite the sources of your information or don't post it. Pissedpat 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I understand the logic and reasoning behind this merger proposal (or rather discussion), however, I would have to note that there are many Wikipedia articles that go into depth and have enough sufficient and credible information to stand on it's own versus being merged into the original weapon/vehicle/aircraft/machine. -TabooTikiGod 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I understand the reasonable logic behind this proposal as well. However, the history of the adoption and subsequent use of the M240 by the United States military in my mind is too large a piece to be placed in an article for the FN MAG58 as whole. The M240 has spawned an entirely separate series of variants as well, and only a portion have direct equivalents within the MAG58 family. FN Markets the two systems separately. This is the same reason why I support the continued separation of the FN Minimi and M249 articles. The M240 article should be kept for the depth it goes into on the topic and the FN MAG58 for the information on the system at base and its original development history. -- Thatguy96 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • FOR the merge. I see no reason to have two seperate articles on the same design. The M240B has some external changes in the furniture. That's it, and all the other M240, US-specific variants will also be listed and described in a revised and moredetailed MAG article that I'm currently working on. We don't have seperate pages for every other variant of the MAG used by every army on this planet, what makes the M240 different? Koalorka 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Read my opposition statement again. There are good reasons for the split, and this happens in other military hardware articles, where the relevant history and development becomes a seperate matter (see things like the split of the Sea King articles and the multiple articles surrounding the H-1 series. The M240 series has a very intricate history, is marketed differently by FN, and has spawned a whole range of variants all by itself. There is a good reason to keep them separate. -- Thatguy96 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • AGAINST - You'll lose too much specific info on the M240. P.S.: There are other MAG variant articles that are more deserving of the merge: check on the L7 and Ksp58 articles. D.E. Watters 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • FOR same reason as Koalorka. and just one thing: i thaught FN just called it MAG, and MAG58 was the ADF designation? And on the (il)logic of it, the Australian MAG58 and UK L*various numbers form 7-44* deserve their own articals too, and well as the F89 (ADF) form the Minimi, if the M249 does. even though the F89 Actualy is different it doesn't get it's own page. XM8 Carbine (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC). this may sound a little controversial but, why do i ge the feeling it's Americans for it being seperate?
  • FOR the merge. this weapon bears much the same relationship to the FN MAG as the UK L7 (etc) variants do and they are alredy merged in. TMHPin (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • FOR I can strip down an L7A1, replace any ten parts I like with the equivalent parts from an M-240 and assemble a fully functional gun. It's quite clear that the M-240 is in no way a separate weapon, it's just the US name for the MAG-58. Genuinely different national variants remain under the parent weapon article - the L1A1 SLR, for example, doesn't have a separate page but is described as an FN-FAL variant - so I see no reason for a clone like the M-240 to have a separate article. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Taboo's and ThatGuy's comments that content and history are sufficient to warrant separate articles. If merged, the M240 content would have to be cut back so as not to dominate the article, which is a good rule of thubm for when to split/keep a split - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - This article is plenty long enough to stand on its own. The M240's development and service history would largely be lost on a merge. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carriage

Why is there no mention of the M97 Mod 0 Carriage used for vehicle-mounted M-240? I wanted to add the information (like I mentioned in M-2 discussion), but I can’t even see where it might fit. I know the carriage isn’t as “sexy” as the gun itself, but it is never the less a critical component. A. REDDSON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.70.241 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweden's Ksp58A & Ksp58B

In the 1950's the 6,5mm mauser was still the main infantry weapon which continued until the 7,62mm AK4 was introduced therefor the first variant was chambered for 6,5mm rounds later the Ksp58B became standard with 7.62mm Nato like the AK4. The last service to use the Ksp58A was the Navy where small arms compatibility isn't a big problem for close defense weapons on ships. This can be read in instruction manuals "Sold Mtrl" of the era, hence i have a hard time to source this as i don't have them in my possession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.148.47 (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Info box

The info box is different than the one used in the M60_machine_gun article. Can someone with the know how and proper info make some adjustments, namely the manufacture and unit costs. --Billy Nair (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think this should be merged into FN MAG

Having looked at all the arguments against a merge I still don't think the M240 qualifies as different enough to have its own article. It does not have unique versions not found anywhere else (for example the UK has coaxial and helicopter-mounted variants and is working on a reduced-weight version,) it is not marketed as a separate system by FN as of 8 Dec 2010 and it has not evolved into a distinct new weapon; I remain able to strip down an L7, replace any ten parts with their M240 equivalents and assemble a working gun. The M240 is just an MAG, not an all-American wonder weapon, and the articles should be merged. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Country of origin

Per recent edits -- the M240 is essentially the FN MAG, so it is indeed a Belgian design, but it is only manufactured in the United States. Therefore, it is appropriate for both countries to be listed under country of origin. The design process took place in Belgium, but the manufacturing process took place in the United States at FNMI. ROG5728 (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with your reasoning. Given that both countries have been listed in the infobox for awhile, it's probably best leave both therte until a consensus to remove them is achieved here first. - BilCat (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't concur with the reasoning because it contains a fatal contradiction. First we have the accurate claim that the M240 is the MAG, which is immediately followed by the INACCURATE claim that it's only manufactured in the USA! The MAG is manufactured in several countries; it just so happens that only the US military designates the end result of that manufacturing process the M240, and that's a minor detail at most. The MAG is currently, or has been, manufactured in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China (PRC), Egypt, India, Indonesia, Sweden, United Kingdom and the USA. It is in no way a weapon of US origin and it's inaccurate for the article to imply that it is. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the M240 article, not the FN MAG article. The M240 is only manufactured in the United States. Some have suggested that the M240 article should be merged into the FN MAG article, but for the moment this article is entirely devoted to the FN MAG as used by the United States, and the United States's MAG is only produced in the country. ROG5728 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The text field in question says "origin," not "place of manufacture," and it's quite clear that the MAG design is NOT of US origin. The USA is only one of a long list of users. Unlike some - the UK and Canada, for example - the USA decided not to manufacture the guns under licence but to buy them directly from FN. The gun is of Belgian origin and is manufactured for the USA by a Belgian company.FergusM1970 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the text field in question says "origin," not "place of design." The M240 is a Belgian design but it is manufactured entirely in the United States. Again, it doesn't matter that the United States is "only one of a long list of users" of the FN MAG. This is not the FN MAG article. This is a separate article. ROG5728 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not manufactured only in the USA. The weapon we are talking about is the FN MAG and it is manufactured pretty much worldwide. M240 is just what the USA calls it, the same as the UK calls it the L7. Sure, most (not all by any means) of the US ones were manufactured in an FN factory in the USA, but if FN decided to they could close that factory tomorrow and ship the US contract guns from Belgium. FergusM1970 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My only input is that both should be cited. The source should explicitly say that the M240 originated in Belgium. We are aiming for Verifiability not truth here. Marcus Qwertyus 08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and can anyone verify a US origin for the gun? It's a Belgian design manufactured by a Belgian company. The US guns aren't even being made under licence by a US company; they are bought directly from FN Herstal. FergusM1970 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
They are made by both of FN Herstal's 2 US-based subsidiaries, FN Manufacturing and FNH USA. As for it being a Belgian design, the FN MAG58 at base is derived from an American design, its action being derived from the Browning Automatic Rifle, but inverted. The modifications to the FN MAG58 that resulted in the M240 variant and its derivatives were made specifically for the United States military. Only FN's US subsidiaries offer the M240 variants. This is the same logic for why the Diemaco/Colt Canada C7 series has its own page, and why its place of origin is stated to be Canada. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Derived from the BAR but inverted, rechambered, reinforced, given a new gas system and fitted with an MG42-derived belt feed mechanism, MG42 trigger group and Bren gun barrel change system. All it has in common with the BAR is the tipping bolt locking system: parts interchangability between the MAG and BAR is nil, whereas parts interchangability between the M240 and other 7.62mm MAG variants is 100% for function-essential parts and close to 100% for the bolt-on shiny bits. And of course the BAR was designed by John Browning, who spent most of his career working for FN... FergusM1970 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, nobody has cited a US origin for the gun so I'm taking it off. Please don't revert unless you have a source that says the M240 is NOT the (Belgian) MAG. FergusM1970 (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The text is restored again with a source. Like the source says, the M240 is a Belgian design (FN MAG) except it is manufactured entirely in the United States. ROG5728 (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You just contradicted yourself. If the M240 is the MAG (which it undeniably is) then it ISN'T manufactured only in the USA, is it? As I have already pointed out, it's LESS of a distinct variant than the L7, which is manufactured under licence, because the USA buys the guns from FN. Please either come up with a source that indicates the M240 is a unique weapon of US origin or stop reverting my edits. FergusM1970 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The M240 is the MAG under a United States designation. This article is talking about the M240 specifically, with regards to United States usage. The M240 as used by the United States military is manufactured in the United States only. Therefore, the United States is its country of origin in terms of manufacture. Belgium is its country of origin in terms of design. So far your edits do not have anyone's support so you need to stop restoring them. ROG5728 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The initial guns were supplied by FN Herstal's Belgian plant. The current guns are still supplied by FN. It is a BELGIAN gun manufactured by a BELGIAN company. FergusM1970 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FNMI is not a Belgian company, it is an American subsidiary of a Belgian company. The M240 as used by the United States military is manufactured exclusively in the United States. ROG5728 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's FN's US operation, set up to manufacture and distribute FN products in the USA. It's part of FN. And the "M240 as used by the United States military" is just the MAG as used by almost everyone else. The M240 is a US designation for the MAG; it is not a separate weapon. Therefore it is inaccurate to claim it has only been produced since 1977 - because it hasn't - and inaccurate to claim it has a US origin - because it doesn't. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have, again, corrected the Service History section. My reasoning is thus:

- M240 is the US military designation for the FN MAG. This is not debateable.
- All weapons referred to as M240s are, in fact, FN MAGs. This is also not debateable.
- The MAG has been in service since 1958 and has been used by the listed users in the listed wars. Again, debate is not an option here.
- It is INACCURATE to claim that this weapon is only used by the USA and has only been used in the USA's wars.

The mere fact that a separate article exists for the "M240" is a laughable case of Small Penis Syndrome. Can we please stop trying to disguise the fact that the M240 IS the MAG? Thanks. FergusM1970 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm going to be able to convince you, as you've apparently made it your mission to see this through, but there are some important points to be made here.
- M240 is both the official US designation and the FN name. There is no FN MAG name for these weapons. This is unlike the the FN MAGs supplied for instance to Israel, which are FN MAG 60.20 T2s or the L7A1/L7A2, which are FN MAG 60.20 T3/T6s. The NATO Stock Number for all FN MAGs not specifically designed for a certain country have the country code 13, for Belgium. The M240, designed specifically for the US and manufactured in the US, has the country code 01, for the US.
- The M240 is a variant of the FN MAG. All M240s are FN MAGs, but not all FN MAGs are M240s. The M240 variant is only used by the United States to my knowledge.
The reason for having a separate M240 page is the same for having a separate M4 or C7 page. The logic for having the US and Canada as the countries of origin for the C7 is the same that being applied for the M240 as well. The reason for the former is that because of the amount of information available, it would clutter up the FN MAG page with information only on one specific variant, and its associated subvariants. The location of manufacture, if it is the only place where the variant is manufactured, it is allowed to become part of its origin. If one were to separate out the L7 variants from the FN MAG page, how would you account for L7s made by HK in England? Some similar arrangement would no doubt have to be made. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the L7s are made by Manroy Engineering, but personally I think it would be silly to have "UK" as a place of origin, because it isn't: the guns are licence-built MAGs, although Manroy calls them L7A2s and the L7A2, of course, is only used by the UK and only manufactured in the UK. As for not all MAGs being M240s, well, not all MAGs are L7s either, but all L7s are still MAGs. The US FN operations market the weapon as M240, but their own websites make it clear that it adheres strictly to the MAG specification. M240s are not significantly different from any other MAGs; parts interchangability is near total and it is in no sense a different weapon. The original M240s were the coax and loader's guns on the M1 Abrams, and they were completely standard guns shipped from Belgium. The M240B is just a MAG 60.20 with a heat shield for the special-needs children among us and an M1913 rail for a sight; should the L7A1 be considered a distinct weapon because it can take a wedge mount for the C2 sight?
I note that the FG1 and FGR2 Phantoms were regarded as American aircraft despite having British engines and avionics and being substantially different from US variants. THEY don't have a separate article on Wikipedia. The L1A1 was significantly modified from the FN FAL, to the point where parts interchangability was severely limited, and IT doesn't have a separate Wiki entry. This whole M240 issue looks like simple chauvinism to me; why is it so hard to say that the M240 is not of US origin? It's not like many US small arms ARE of US origin any more: the simple fact is that we have a global weapons market and Belgium is better at designing small arms than practically everyone else. I don't know WHY this should be, because they're otherwise useless, but that's the way it is: The USA uses the MAG because US designers repeatedly failed to come up with a satisfactory GPMG, just the same as British ones did.
Anyway. As a compromise, how about leaving "USA" as a place of origin but keeping the service history section the same as for the MAG article? After all the weapon IS the MAG,it HAS been used since 1958 and it has an extensive list of users. The USA isn't the only country that USES the weapon, it's just the only one that calls it the M240. FergusM1970 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I find the comments about what country is a better small arms designer to be very amusing, considering that the FN MAG is basically a cosmetically altered MG42. I notice the history of this weapon is largely absent from both the M240 and MAG pages, but it's probably more of a case of who captured the most MG42 materiel at the end of the war, much like USSR's capture of MP44 and panzerfaust prototype materiel factored heavily into the Kalashnikov and RPG series. America was more interested in capturing rockets and rocket scientists. Anyway, giving anyone other than "zee Germans" credit for the MG42 design is like claiming you wrote, performed, and recorded all the music you downloaded off Bittorrent. Разрывные (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes again. This article is about the M249 as used by US forces only, so it's totally inaccurate to claim it has been used since 1958, as that implies the US forces began using it, or that it was used in SA, etc. As to the Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2, the reason they aren't covered by a separate variant article is that all the varints of the Phantom are covered in more detail at List of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II variants rather than in the main article. If it were not for that fact, I probably would have created a variant article for the UK Phantoms a couple of years ago. Anyway, variant articles are split from their main articles on there own merits, not because of how other articles are or are not split. - BilCat (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But the M240 ISN'T used by US forces only; it is the FN MAG, it is one of the most widely used GPMGs in the world and it most certainly has been in use since 1958. However, for the moment I am too busy on other things to keep on with this juvenile pissing contest. It's a Belgian gun. Get over it, kids. FergusM1970 (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Manroy used to make them, but they have since been replaced by HK [1] (note the use of the UK country code in the NSN there, even though the weapons are apparently made in Germany for the British Army; I was wrong when I initially suggested they were made in England). And while the L1A1 isn't separate from the FN FAL page (and no subvariants are in that case), the C7 is separate from the M16 page. FN M16 would be another case in point, as they were never made in Belgium. If they had been, I'm sure there would be a separate page for them.
You also can't seem to get over the fact that in this one instance it was determined that the MAG article would be too cluttered if all the information was merged, and the M240 family was split off. And the M240 variant is only used by the United States. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a variant, it's a designation. M240s are compliant with the MAG specifications. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rate of fire

"What is the sustained rate of fire for the M240B? 100 Rounds per minute fired in 6 to 9 round bursts and 4 to 5 seconds between bursts." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.116.252 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Marines?

Certain passages seem to focus more heavily on the marines and their SOP. For instance, the M122a is widely used in the Army and is issued more frequently than in the Marine Corps (pending verification). Many other issues arise targeted at the overall slant of the writing and it is overall un-encyclopedic. I will revisit this issue shortly.74.34.164.80 (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

MAG Acronym

According to the linked FM MAG page. MAG stands for Mitrailleuse d'Appui Général, not Mitrailleuse à Gaz. They have debated this on the Talk page of that article, and resolved the issue by marshalling a citation. I have edited this article to eliminate the discrepancy, and copied and pasted their citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.252.74 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M240 machine gun. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M240 machine gun. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M240_machine_gun/Archive_1&oldid=1146334443"