Talk:Gatling gun

message: The following link doesn't currently work: http://www-acala1.ria.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/aagatlin.htm (moved from article) - snoyes 16:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: When was the Gatling gun patented?  1865, as said in the lead, or 1861, as claimed in the history section? -- Jonel | Speak 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal disagreement

message: It would be of interest to have a mention of the tactical use of Gatling guns.  I've read they were employed like artillery pieces (contrary to film & TV depictions of them like the MGs in "Rat Patrol"...)  --squadfifteen, 23/11/05
::In Operation Just Cause my squad from B btry. 2/62 ADA used our Vulcan to sink a PT boat that was speeding up the Panama Canal. L0b0t 12:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactics 

message: The author has unfortunatly given ZERO attention to the Gatling Gun's first major deployment in combat with its usage against the Dakota Empire, Arapaho Nation, Cheyenne Nation and scores of others during that genocidal period in the USA's history known as the Indian Wars.
Anybody want to cover the gun's devastating effect against those countries?
:POV neutral?
::why do people rant about how something isn't covered, and then not write it themselves? MJustice (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, they should feel free to add such information. It may be useful, however, for them to first learn what genocide actually means and that Indian nations weren't "countries". More importantly for this topic, they should understand that early Gatling guns weren't really all that effective, hence their rapid replacement by Maxim type weapons.--172.190.225.79 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Wars 

message: I dont think this guy was a dentist. It dosent say anything about him being a dentist in his article 
Richard Jordan Gatling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.31.140 (talk • contribs) .
: You are quite right. I will remove that. Megapixie 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, it would appear that he studied medicine and dentistry, but never actually practiced. Removing the comment is best. Megapixie 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dentist

message: As far as I can tell Bofors 40mm guns like those on USAF AC-130s are not multibarrel rotary guns. 75.31.138.94 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the 7.62mm, 20mm and 25mm Vulcan cannons that have been used on AC-130s over the years ARE multi-barrel rotary cannons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.250.98 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOFORS =/= Gatling 

message: I know this seems stupid, but alot of videogames and some tv shows have shown characters holding and firing a gatling gun with just their two arms. I seriously doubt it, but is this possible in real life?
:If you were extremely muscular, yes. Wouldn't be practical though. The batteries and ammo would contribute too much weight. CABAL 14:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any known occasions were someone actually attempted to try this in real life? And yes, in those video games such as team fortress 2, the characters do look unnaturaly large Diabl0658 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesse Ventura held a portable Gatling gun in the movie Predator. However, from what I read he had to fight the thing to keep it under control and needed to be propped up when firing it. And this was just with blanks. CABAL 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my Predator DVD, the spin of the barrels offset the recoil. Both he and Bill Duke held and fired the gun unassisted. The gun itself is the M134 helicopter gun with custom furniture rigged around it. If you look closely on the DVD, it's actually pretty cheap looking; I'd be more worried about the sling breaking off than muzzle climb. The real problem, however, is that the battery pack was bulky and heavy, so they just hid it in the grass. In the movies, Ol' Painless is powered by cool. Woerkilt (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? All the other sources about it I have seen have said that they had to use a crane to hold it up and fire it, can you provide other sources on that? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesse at least did hold it without the crane using a custom sling (a crane was used in some shots) and described it as "like firing a chainsaw," but bear in mind the Predator gun was [a] firing blanks which have far less recoil and [b] geared down to around 1,200 RPM rather than 6,000 because the director wanted the barrels to visibly rotate on 24FPS movie film. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently You can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d84r8gMGxFQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=146s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.69.87 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handheld Gatling Guns 

message: Wouldn't the perpendicular motion of the bullets with respect to the line of fire ruin its accuracy? If a 5cm radius cylinder rotates at 600rpm, the bullets would have a perpendicular velocity of 3.14 m/s which would be very bad for long range targets. Does air friction help compensate for this? --UncleJoe1985
:(Please sign your comments with four tildes.) The rate of fire is so high that one actually fires, then aims. You point in the general direction, then use the tracers to walk the fire onto the target. Individual inaccuracy doesn't really matter; when you throw enough stuff something gets hit. --StarChaser Tyger 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eiffel56, I'm quite certain the bullets will all move in some perpendicular motion in addition to straight. Now that I thought about it, I think the solution is simple: have the bullets leave the barrel exactly when the barrel is going up to counter gravity! Now a 1000m/s bullet traveling 1km will drop 4.9m due to gravity and rise 3.14m due to the initial upward velocity. --UncleJoe1985 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The only fighter that uses a gatling type gun is the Warthog, though, isn't it? And it's a ground attack beastie, which (in the videos I've seen of it in action) fires like I suggest above. Fire, then move to hit the target. --StarChaser Tyger 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The M61 Vulcan is used by the F14, F15, F16, F18 F22. The Harrier and F35 use the GAU-12 Equalizer, a derivative of the M61. StarChaser is correct; fire is just walked in using tracers. Parsecboy 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The bullets will travel in a straight line (apart from gravitational effects) but that line will not be exactly parallel to the barrel. It will be the direction the bullet is travelling in at the moment it leaves the barrel. So presumably they correct for this by assuming a particular rpm and moving the sights or the barrels. To continue the rock on a string analogy, while the bullet is in the barrel it travels in a spiral, and on leaving the barrel it will follow a tangent to the spiral. 93.97.25.170 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The physics is correct, there is a cross-velocity to the projectile that results from the spinning cluster... it is, however, very predictable and very consistent. It is partly compensated for by having a slight cant to the barrels (they aren't actually parallel to each other or to the centerline of the gun) and the remainder and is easily compensated for in the fire control calculations. VTFirefly911 (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Accuracy Due To Barrel Spinning? 

message: The article states that the minigun was referred to as "Puff The Magic Dragon."  Wasn't the term used for the AC-47 gunship rather than the minigun? ("Spectre" referring to the AC-130 gunship.)
-- I believe you are correct.  MJustice (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puff The Magic Dragon 

message: I understand that a spinning set of barrels is slightly less accurate than a single stationary barrel. The phrase "though accuracy suffers" should stay in the lead, in my opinion. Support? Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That has already been addressed in the #Poor Accuracy Due To Barrel Spinning? section above, and the main point was that the affects are negligible. Feel free to counter those arguments there, and build a consensus to add your phrase, but for now, the consensus is to keep it out. - BillCJ (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy suffers

message: About a  fictional weapon in RPG's that you can also build with your Leggo set. Not enough info or notability for independent article, but could add to a fictional use section here.  Dlohcierekim  21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue delete rather than add more cruft here. What can you possibly say about it ? Megapixie (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, there is no need for a merge here, just delete Gatling pistol. L0b0t (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Prod. - BillCJ (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mege here [[Gatling pistol]] 

message: At the Richard Jordan Gatling page, he's quoted as saying "It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished." This is from The Gatling Gun by Wahl and Toppel in 1971. Yes, this quote supports the position that he said one person could replace many, but it did not say that one person could operate the gun. Clearly, such a heavy piece would need a crew. The quote does not support him saying it was invented to save Union deaths. Gatling was on the fence about the Civil War—the region of his birth fought for the South but he lived and worked in the North. He hated death, that much is clear, which is why it's ironic that the machine he brought to war was used to amplify the death-dealing capability of armies. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it required less people to shoot that than to stand out in a line and shoot.--Krasilschic (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: it wasn't made to reduce deaths by disease. one of gatling's descendants said it was to reduce union casualties because it only needed one person to fire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasilschic (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were choosing which to use here in the article, I'd go with Gatling's own verifiable written reasoning before I'd accept "one of gatling's descendants said..." Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gatling's own words are the preferred source here.  Besides, it is a crew served weapon and was never intended to be operated by one person (that's just silly). L0b0t (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gatling's motivation 

message: Would someone please clarify the use of the term canon in more modern contexts?  It is used here without a clear definition, but it's clear that it's not something that fires cannonballs.  My guess would be that it means something like "pneumatic machine gun", but for all I know, the term could include hydraulic operated guns or even non-automatic operation.
Thanks.  DudeFromWork (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cannon" in context of weapons like the M61 means "Autocannon", though that term is rarely used. - BillCJ (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cannon" is frequently used as a term for weapons that are larger than those that fit the definition of "small arms", which is generally accepted to be 0.50-caliber and smaller. VTFirefly911 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BillCJ here. "Cannon" is often used as short for "autocannon."  --Trifler (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannon terminology 

message: "lay neither in the rotating mechanism (featured by many revolvers of the day)" This could do with clarifying, since no revolver (of that period or since) had multiple barrels. (Or am I being too picky?)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  01:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Round, round we go

message: Should there be such a section? 80.101.113.45 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually not, for weapons. See WP:MILPOP. Hardly any pop stuff gets into articles under the watchful eye of the military history wikiproject. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it passed, you'd have to find a case where it was really pivotal to the film, & AFAIK, there isn't one. (I recall a caper Western using one, & occasional appearances, including some in TV, but nothing really central to the story.)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The movie isn't called "Predator v Gatling Gun", so, no. Compare "Winchester '73".  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  08:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that the word "gatling gun/minigun" has to be in the title to count? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I am saying, unless it's central enough it could be (or should be), it's just another firearm. Until, unless, Clint makes your day with it.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  07:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gatling guns in fiction

message: How is grapeshot an example of rapid firing?--Jrm2007 (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grapeshot? 

message: There seems to be enough information in this article to separate it into an article on the original Gatling gun, and the modern Gatling-based derivatives. I note that there is a Category for "Rotary cannons", where the main article redirects back to Gatling gun, which is probably not appropriate. Chalky (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also Multiple barrel firearm and minigun to consider. Your proposed takeover of Rotary cannon could be a good way to split.  Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree with splitting out but not sure where to take it. We would want to be careful to not create a content fork.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with spliting, probably to Rotary cannon. I don't think we have to worry about C-Forking, as we're primarily splitting recent history, not "advocat[ing] a different stance on the subject." - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that Rotary cannon should not make an inadvertent content fork with either of the two articles mentioned by Binksternet and did not mean this article. I'm stating that for Chalky's sake...just something to consider when implementing.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking over Rotary cannon sounds like a plan. (Also, thanks for letting me find this. :D Never noticed it before.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article into two 

message: In this section, the note that the gun was invented by Richard Gatling is redundant.  We already have that note, in the History section.  I recommend that the redundant info be removed.
TheBaron0530 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant info in "American Civil War and the Americas" 

message: :The timeline in this section bounces all over the place and needs work. It starts with the Gatling gun in 1861-62, then jumps to the Maxim of 1883 in the next paragraph.
:The third paragraph begins with "Prior to the Gatling gun" that includes the content "mass-firing volley weapons like the French Reffye mitrailleuse in 1870–1871, and field cannons firing canister shot, much like a very large shotgun.", using the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) as an example of the later.
:There should be a flowing timeline, and some rewording wouldn't hurt, without the bouncing around and wrong dates. The Reffye mitrailleuse gun, used in the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War, would not be "Prior to the Gatling gun", The Christophe and Montigny mitrailleuse was a volley gun that began in 1859 so technically could be considered prior. Apparently actual production did not start until 1863 (the date credited) so that is not an entirely accurate example, although it was a volley gun. The Fafchamps mitrailleuse (1851) would be a correct example of a volley gun "prior" to the Gatling. Otr500 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section issues 

message: Please include this passage.....below.
The British inventor James Puckle (1667 to 1724) designed a multi chamber single barrel gun around 1718 and patented it as a multi fire weapon and possibly the first gun in this category firing more than two shots.
This design had a flintlock ignition system as in use on most European firearms of that period.
The Puckle gun was very likely the forerunner of the handgun "revolvers" (and similar chambered 19th Cent  rifled longarms such as Colt designs) that are still in use around the world now and still working on the same principle of single barrel and multi chamber design. 195.226.42.242 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This might belong at Revolver or Machine gun, not here: the Puckle, presuming it worked, is a single-barrel weapon; the Gatling, self-evidently, isn't.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed edit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gatling 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/20090804011933/http://sunblest.net/gun/Gatling.htm to http://sunblest.net/gun/Gatling.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) 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I want to change the rapid-firing to auto-firing because there are many types of auto-firing weapons, include hand crank type. LongnamXL35 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite reliable published sources to support your assertions. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It isn't a rapid-firing gun, it's a types of auto-firing gun 

message: Please be prepared for bad faith actors to start changing the year this device was invented; suggest locking the page for a time 2601:601:1501:D530:D1E3:ADB2:6DF6:37A (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We usually don't preemptively protect articles. If it becomes a problem, then we can request protection. If we asked an admin now, they'd likely point out that the article hasn't even been edited in nearly a month. BilCat (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject has made the news; lock?