Talk:Machine gun

message: "A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire bullets in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine, typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute. The first design/invention of the machine gun was by Leonardo Da Vinci, presenting a design of an eight barreled machine gun that was operated manually by a bandcrank, and was mounted onto the ground, and barely portable. However, the more modern machine gun was designed by Samborino and Jordanian, two extremely active troublemakers."
Citation needed?
Perhaps I'm being paranoid but the bold text sounds biased to me with the use of the word "troublemakers".
Jimothy 183 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troublemakers? 

message: I've been looking over the article, and everything is fine except for one thing. Metal Storm weapons and miniguns are notable "rapid fire" weapons, but are not really true machine guns unless powered by the byproduct of their projectile (and they're not). So on the "Future" section near the bottom that mentions Metal Storm and the minigun, should I delete this section, or should I leave it and just modify the contents?
Because I hate to break it to you, but neither of those weapon systems are machine guns.
:Note, above unsigned post by IP was today.  The bot didn't seem to mark. ? North8000 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral Question 

message: not sure about the metal storm as it kinda defies modern conventional firearms design, assuming you are referring to the M134 Minigun, it is absolutely 100% classified as a machine gun as it is automatically driven by a electric motor. you may be mistaking it for the Gatling gun, which cannot be classified as a machine gun because it is manually hand cranked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.44.21 (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: OK, sombody changed in the operating principals section, the thing about when squirt guns were first used, and the random quote about peeing on a statue is illegal, i really hate poeple like that, i couldnt figure out how to change it back, kinda new here, but just a heads up to anybody who knows how to do this. it just didnt look right to me. Dave  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.60.228 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Squirt Guns

message: The most popular feature of machine guns and similiar weapons is their speed... Why the speed is nto specifically addressed anywhere? I mean, with data like "fire X bullets per sec" or something like that. 200.106.40.22 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the example of a fast-firing machine gun you're looking for is the MG-34 at over 1200 RPM.  And that's with 7.92mm Mauser rifle ammunition, not some diminutive 9mm Kurz.  Machine guns are simply not defined by their rate of fire.  Like the BATF says, if it fires more than one cartridge with each action of the trigger, it's a machine gun.  Rate of fire just doesn't enter into it.SEWalk (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed

message: Are all automatic weapons considered machine guns?
:No.  In general, a machine gun needs to fire rifle ammunition (pistol ammunition makes it a submachine gun) from a belt or high-capacity magazine (assault rifles have small-capacity magazines). --Carnildo 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that true machine guns would have a definition as follows...  Fires Rifle rounds with few exceptions, from an open or closed bolt position, are automaticaly operated by either; Gas (M-240), recoil (M-2), or blow back (MK-19).  The Machine comes in that the weapon is BELT FED and the process of de-linking, stripping(taking round out of the link, and feeding are done at the same time in one single operation, and the weapon is fully automatic.  The weapons that can be fed by high capacity magazine are technicaly an automatic rifle.  this is a conundrum for the U.S. military in how the classify the M-249 S.A.W. it was once classified as a automatic rifle and sometimes is still but, now is often called an light machine gun.  Finaly a machine pistol is a automatic rifle that fires pistol cartridges. As to the small capacity magazines, most automatic rifles come with high capacity magazines like the Russians RPK but, they can still use the ak-47 magazines.
True, but machine guns do not always have to be belt fed. 
Eiffel56 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: We need to recognize that that is the most common meaning of the term. Yes, it may include a few types that other definitions may not include.North8000 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me there are two definitions of the term, a colloquial one, and a more precise one. There's already an Automatic firearm article (it even expresses the precise definition of 'machine gun'), so doesn't it make sense to commit to the more precise definition, with a note at the top of the article about the two meanings? As it stands the article is about machine guns in the precise sense (there's no mention of the AK-47 for instance), despite that the opening text gives the far broader definition of the term. Wootery (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea.  Note the colloquial definition as a synonym of Automatic firearm and say that this article is about the (topic covered by) more technical definition. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done so, feedback is welcome. Wootery (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto weapons

message: The article currently claims that heavy machine guns can be used for sniping.  I find this hard to believe (but have no evidence contrdicting it). Perhaps it is confusing them with .50 caliber anti-materiel sniper rifles? --Andrew 17:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
No, Carlos Hathcock made a special mounting bracket for an M2 machine gun, and managed to set a world record for longest kill. However, just recently, some Canadian (I'm not going to look him up; he's in wikipedia, so find him yourself) just set the new record with a .50 caliber anti-material rifle, so both options are viable.
:No, it really refers to sniping. The tripod is a very stable mount, and the short-recoil action provides minimal and consistent disturbance to the point of aim during the cycle. Because the cyclic rate is rather slow, by careful trigger operation it is relatively easy to fire a single shot. So prior to the recent development of dedicated .50 cal sniper rifles, a small number of individuals tried mounting a telescopic sight on the barrel and sniping with them. The best known example being GySgt Carlos Hathcock (at 2250 m), although it was previously done in Korea by a British officer (whose name I forget). However, it was not by any means common. -- Securiger 13:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy machine guns for sniping? 

message: The article seems to imply that all closed bolt guns are positively locked.  Many are not.  An example would be closed bolt versions of the UZI.
Next, the description of the typical cartrige ejection system attributes the function of two separate pieces, the extractor and the ejector, to one piece who's description makes little sense.
Not having edited before, I figure I'll wait for comments before making a change.
--ming 68.99.181.114 06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think you can do a better job of describing things than the current version does, go ahead. --Carnildo 08:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Nit-picks 

message: I just noticed that the info contained in the introduction (which looks more like a whole article itself) is basically duplicated info from the more detailed sections down below. The introduction shouldn't be too long, and it shouldn't contain so much specific information, especially when all the same information is already in the article with better writing. The article also needs reordering of the sections. --Squalla 20:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A introduction is always going to cover somewhat similar material, though it might better to split it off into a overview. No opinion on re-ordering though. Ve3 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate/redundant information 

message: The article states a precursor for LDV's original machine gun design
"Multi-shot guns have a long development, going as far back to the 1st century, with plans for a multi-shot arrow gun by Greek engineer Hero of Alexandria."
but neglects to mention the Chu-Ko-Nu repeating crossbow which was a machine gun for arrows of sorts.  --ColourBurst 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More History (specifically precursors to the machine gun) 

message: Say, are there articles where there is a place to put this image :Image:Shanghai1937KMT machine gun nest.jpg? It's quite a distinctive picture, as I have not seen the likes of it before (as compared to say, trench warfare or a person lying prone) ... was looking on an article desribing defensive tactics where this would be useful. It does say a lot about the often heard, "a machine gun nest! Quick, throw a grenade!" type of scenario, or that nest one can't seem to be able to identify accurately. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  positions and tactics 

message: "To this end, most light machine guns and general purpose machine guns are not designed for high accuracy, as would be expected of a rifle. Most are designed with a small degree of inaccuracy, referred to as the "cone of fire", because the rounds spread out as they travel towards the target area, rather like the spread of a shotgun, but continuous."
I find this to be a dubious claim. By what mechanism does the author suggest that machine guns are deliberately made inaccurate to increase their cone of fire? And for that matter, you have a "cone of fire" for automatic weapons designed to be accurate - it's inherent to rapid fire.
In order to deliberately make a gun less accurate, you would have to introduce a mechanism, or loosen the tolerances to the point of creating inaccuracy. Could someone provide evidence that these factors are considered and even encouraged in machine gun design? 
A distinction should be made between single-shot accuracy and a cone of fire created by recoil. Machine guns are typically more accurate than their rifle counterparts, and, for that matter, have a smaller cone of fire and are less affected by recoil. But in either case, you're talking about two seperate things. SenorBeef 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for being designed for inaccuracy? 

message: In the introduction, it states:
The first machine gun was constructed in Britain, 1913, 2 months before the first world war. It was designed several hundred years prior by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Later, the article says:
The first true machine gun was invented in 1881 by Hiram Maxim.
I believe the latter is accurate, the former makes no sense, and is grammatically poor.  Boomcoach 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the first statement.  As you said, it makes no sense. --Carnildo 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First machine gun contradiction 

message: On 17 July, I added a description of the Washington D.C. definition of machine gun to an existing description of the US legal definition in the introduction. This description was removed by an unregistered user who described it as specious (description was accurate and did not attempt to overstate the case, listing info from D.C press releases and news articles about the case) and as not germain [sic] to a generalized discussion.
The first point baffles me. The details were all verifiable. Google's cache has expired, but the initial press release by the mayor's office was shown by the Google cache to have been modified, lending confusion to the District's definition. However, I have been able to locate a copy of the original press release with the wording about machine guns at the D.C Office of Secretary's site. Obviously, the wording should be changed to recognize this more reliable source instead of the expired Google cache, but this does not change any facts presented in the addition to this article.
The second point is also unsupported. As is already demonstrated in the article's inclusion of a legal definition of machine gun, the legal definition is fundamental to categorizing weapons since restrictions are based on such definitions. When D.C. defines machine guns in contradiction to U.S law, it has legal ramifications for gun owners. Information about such contradictions is part of the discussion of machine guns and should be freely available. Such information should probably not belong in the introduction, however. I would like to hear suggestions on creating a new section or adding the D.C. information to an existing section.Kylos h (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Machine Gun Legal Definition

message: The first paragraph seems to contradict its self since it defines a machine gun as "fully-automatic" and then goes on to say that non-automatic  "manually operated, for example, by turning a hand crank" guns were "machine guns". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's a Gardner Gun, then? Or a Nordenfelt Gun? Before fully automatic weapons, there was a whole generation of hand-powered machine guns, as they are indeed frequently called. In fact, several articles on individual machine guns make a distinction between hand- and self-powered machine guns. This is the first article I've seen that insists on the former not being machine guns at all. Where did you get that definition from, anyway? 82.135.67.136 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. I've been reading about military matters for 35 years and this is the first time I have heard it suggested that a Gatling gun is not a machine gun. In normal parlance it is a machine gun. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This is still wrong, five years on. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A common definition is "calibre less than 20 mm", meaning that automatic weapons chambered for .50 cal/12,7mm and Russian 14.5×114mm are machine guns while automatic weapons chambered for 20 mm calibre or larger are automatic cannons. Thomas.W  talk 11:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition?

message: "A model of a typical entrenched German machine gunner in World War I. He is operating an MG08, wearing a Stahlhelm and cuirass to protect him from shell fragments, and protected by rows of barbed wire and sandbags." This is misleading, the cuirass was meant to protect primarily against bullets afaik. Lastdingo (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo text 

message: At the begginning of the article, the date for the maxim gun is 1884, and in the middle of the article it is 1881.75.105.246.92 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to 1884, as this date is also given in the Maxim Gun article. 82.135.67.136 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Sources: Jane's: "15mm FN-15 heavy machine gun" "15.5 x 106 mm".
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Infantry-Weapons/15-mm-FN-BRG-15-heavy-machine-gun-Belgium.html
Author Anthony G Williams, on World War 2 aircraft armament: "The most powerful of all the HMG's was the 15 mm MG 151".
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
Aviation of World War II: "MG-151 machine gun" "15mm".
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/mg151-shtml
World Guns: "ZB-60" "BESA 15mm heavy machine gun". "The first test guns were more properly classified as automatic cannon, because of their 20mm caliber."
http://world.guns.ru/machine/chex/26-60-e.html
Sulasgeir (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "15mm" "autocannons" 

message: "Guns firing large-caliber explosive rounds are generally considered either autocannons or automatic Noob tubes ("grenade machine guns")."
Noob tubes? Definitely vandalism.   --bean 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The first bullet point in the operation paragraph contains the following text:
"...until the trigger is activated making bolt carrier move forward"
This quote fails to distinguish between machine guns firing from the open bolt position, and those firing from the closed bolt position. 
The Browning machine gun, which fires from the closed bolt position, has a lever to the rear of the weapon which releases the bolt carrier, allowing it to move forward. In the example of this particular weapon, it is not the trigger that performs this function.
In the FN series of belt fed weapons, notably the MINIMI, the bolt stays to the rear when the weapon is cocked. The bolt carrier only moves forward when the trigger is pulled.
A revision to this list of bullet points could include two methods of operation. One for open-bolt weapons, and one for closed-bolt weapons.
Ex Soldier, UK  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.27.144 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence in "Operation" paragraph. 

message: Although the Metal Storm design is radically different to other types of rapid fire gun, I think it is reasonable to include a reference to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eworrall (talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a reference to Metal Storm 

message: I have always read that 20mm + is the cutoff for autocannons. If there is indeed debate about this (it says "16mm or larger" in the text...are there 17mm, 18mm, 19mm MG or cannons even?), it should at least say that some people consider 20mm and larger the cutoff for autocannons. I've never heard anything except this. Generally it's accepted that a 15mm MG 151 is a machine gun, while a 20mm MG 151/20 is an autocannon. Where does this number come from, who says a 17mm gun is an autocannon and why, and why ignore the commonly stated ""20mm or larger" cutoff. It ought to acknowledge this viewpoint, as indeed there is no "official" cutoff, and explain why some people consider 16mm to be the cutoff, assuming that there must be people who believe this, or they wouldn't have put it in the article. If I need to go and dig up one of the numerous statements to the effect that "20mm is accepted as the minimum caliber for a gun to be considered an autocannon", I will..45Colt 08:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because someone above found references to 15mm weapons as heavy machine guns, so assumed 16mm was the cutoff because they couldn't find any 16-20mm weapons to find out what they were called? Should also note nobody calls rotary guns autocannons since I've never heard things like the M61 or GAU-8 called that. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "16mm" cutoff? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414223553/http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/collections_view.aspx?mid=2&scid=7 to http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/collections_view.aspx?mid=2&scid=7
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) 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article lead currently reads typically at a rate of 300 rounds per minute or higher. This may be true of current weapons (or not, I have not researched it and it's not sourced in the lead) but it's not generally true historically... complete rubbish would not be an overstatement IMO! Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How many weapons that fit the modern definition of a machine gun cycle slower than 300rpm? Even the Maxim, the first machine gun, ran at 550-600. The only one I can really think of that fired significantly slower would be the Chauchat (240rpm), and the Chauchat is not exactly typical. Bones Jones (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Per OP - unsourced and not mentioned in article. Removed. (Hohum @) 20:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate of fire 

message: I'd be interested to see if info about this:  could be added. Seems  to be a machine gun produced before this article says they were produced, if it meets the standards. Even if not, it would still fit in with the Belton and others. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chambers Flintlock 

message: Machine gun is a fully automatic weapons, not a rapid-firing weapons LongnamXL35 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A gatling gun does not fire automatically, it requires energy input to cycle and fire. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machine gun is never a rapid-firing weapons. 

message: There seems to be a lot entries about one-off proto-machine guns from passing mentions in offbeat sources in the article. There is little to no detail about their operation in the sources provided, and they do little to show the evolution of the machine gun through history. They appear to be evolutionary dead ends that aren't worth mentioning; as such, they should be removed. (Hohum @) 18:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is devolving into a list of proto-machine guns that only get passing mentions in sources 

message: Is that the legal definition of a machine gun, rifled? So if you pull the trigger on a gun & it automatically fires, it is not a machine gun if the barrel is not rifled? It is noted that a definition is given which seems contrary to the above: "a fully automatic firearm that loads, fires and ejects continuously when the trigger is held to the rear until the ammunition is exhausted or pressure on the trigger is released." There is no mention of rifled in that definition. (TerryKave (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  rifled? 

message: It is suggested that consistency be used in the punctuation of lists.  Some consultation on the way to punctuate lists might be helpful. (TerryKave (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The OPERATION section is inconsistent using periods (or not) in its list.