Talk:M249 light machine gun

Picture of M249 Para soldier

He's a soldier, because he's wearing the Army Combat Uniform. He's got a combat patch from 2nd Mar Div but many Army units were attached to Marine command in Iraq. The fact that he's even wearing a combat patch is proof that he's a soldier and not a Marine since Marines don't wear combat patches on their field uniforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.57.141 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As that soldiers unit and even branch of the armed forces are disputed I think it's better not to mention any of them. Saying he's american is also not needed because the M249 is only used by the U.S. armed forces.--Patton^t/c 20:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

There is a peer review underway for this article here--Patton^t/c 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Marine SAW Replacement

The information regarding the USMC replacement of the SAW with the IAR is already dated. The Marine Corps Systems Command recently awarded four contracts for the IAR. The much-publicized LWRC Infantry Automatic Rifle was not awarded a contract. --D.E. Watters (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bad the Ultimax didn't make the cut. I suspect that there was some political reasoning behind the decision. The Ultimax was the clear performance winner, IIRC. It's really 100% easiser to hit what you're shooting with when firing the Ultimax. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't even see this Discussion page, but I defined IAR and threw up a quick page for it here; that page addresses the four samples being submitted by three contractors. Also in this section is a paragraph about the Army not being interested in the IAR -- that para isn't really relevant to an article on the SAW. Anyone wanna nuke it? --WhyTanFox (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is revelevant, it tells you what the army wants to do with its saws, and that it is not following the marines.--Patton^t/c 19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I concur. --WhyTanFox (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[I|i]nfantry [A|a]utomatic [R|r]ifle [(IAR)]

Is not the term "Infantry Automatic Rifle" a proper noun? We are not writing about "automatic rifles used by infantry", but a specific weapon being sought by the USMC. I am of the opinion that the term should be Titled Caps as it is a proper noun, and that the acronym IAR should be specified immediately after as it is used later in the article. --WhyTanFox (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same for the M249 itself, 'Squad Automatic Weapon' was a proper noun last time I checked. Hayden120 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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.--Patton^t/c 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

I have nominated this article for A-class status here this is the final step before the article becomes featured, so all input is appreciated.--Patton^t/c 19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Signaleer (talk · contribs) on adding the images File:M249 FN MINIMI DM-SD-05-05342.jpg and File:Texas ARNG Fire M249 LSA Anaconda, Iraq 2006.JPEG to the article. I don't believe they add anything to the text. Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement says:

Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic.

These images aren't relevant, they just show random soldiers from various units using M249s; they don't show specific features or different models etc. A user who commented on the A-class review, linked in the thread above this one, said that the images need cleaning up.--Patton^t/c 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How are they not relavent? Please be more specific, it shows historical context of the article, for example the File:M249 FN MINIMI DM-SD-05-05342.jpg, showing US Soldiers using the weapon in the 1980s and more recent one File:Texas ARNG Fire M249 LSA Anaconda, Iraq 2006.JPEG shows American soldiers using the weapons on a range in 2006, so yes, in my opinion, it is relavent and adds to the article. How does it detract? what user commented on the A-Class review? -Signaleer (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No such information exists referencing these specific photographs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/M249_Squad_Automatic_Weapon -Signaleer (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the caption, would you know when they were used? No you wouldn't. Are 5 similar pictures of the same weapon in an article useful? No they aren't, please see our image guidelines.

Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A suitable picture of a hammerhead shark would show its distinctive hammer-like head, to distinguish it from other generic sharks.

The images are irrelevant. Btw JoeNutter is the one who made the comment.--Patton^t/c 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on which image have to go, but at least two of them have too...there are way to many right now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by User:Patton123 to come here and give an uninvolved assessment. I would tend to agree that the two pictures are largely identical in terms of portraying the M249, specifically. They are both excellent pictures, but they both show essentially the same thing; both are generic images of the Army's M-249 SAW (as opposed to, say, the Minimi or the Marine Corps' M-249D) with all the usual features. The only differences are one's mounted on a tripod with one soldier and the other's got several soldiers with the SAWs on bipods. Not really major enough to justify, if you ask me. Signaleer, why don't we discuss adding images of M249 SAW variants like the Minimi forerunner, the D-model and the paratrooper model with the short barrel if you want to use them to illustrate how the weapon system has evolved over the years? Is that amenable to everyone? Bullzeye ^contribs 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'd propose removing the first and third images in the middle section, since the first shows the same early model M249 that was a direct clone of the Minimi (no top barrel guard, Minimi trim receiver) that the first picture on the left shows. It's also much farther away. The third is the same modern M249 that is used today, with the new receiver styling, contoured barrel and upper handguard. Problem is, it's the same as the picture directly above it, except that one is clearer and closer and shows it used with a tripod. I'd say despite the presence of the tripod it still shows the specific features of the modern system much better than the third pic. This way, we can show "Old M249, Current regular M249, Paratrooper M249" and thus cover all our bases. How's that sound?Bullzeye ^contribs 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons

The icons shouldn't be in the article. They are merely decorative. You say there is long standing consensus for this? There isn't, there is absolute consensus to the opposite from a much larger number of editors. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The flags need to go.--Patton^t/c 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's been a big debate on this elsewhere and it was decided flags stay, but only in the origins section of the infobox. Koalorka (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This article falls under WP:GUN as well. The concensus there was clearly for inclusion. PLEASE Take up the discussion there and don't hide it here. Look at virtually any other firearms article (try the navbox at the bottom of the M249 page) and you should see flag icons. They are NOT merely decorative as they are being used. You're from the other side of the tracks, if you'd been editing firearms articles you'd know of the concensus.[6] Please read the prior discussion. If you see anything that wasn't covered there, bring it up on the project page... NOT HERE. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That linked discussion demonstrates consensus against the inclusion of flags.--Patton^t/c 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The icons guideline states that they should not used in infoboxes with only one or two entries.--Patton^t/c 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the flag issue was addressed by the entire project and consensus was established to leave the flags but only in the origins field. We ARE NOT going to re-open the debate here for the purpose of nominating this one article. Koalorka (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Er...WikiProjects cannot choose not to enforce a guideline on their articles.--Patton^t/c 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC at last!

I have nominated this article to become a featured article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M249 squad automatic weapon. Input would be greatly appreciated.--Patton^t/c 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Minimi article is much better, but I'd rather not have it trashed, which is what typically happens when an article is nominated. So sure, I commend you and editors involved here. Koalorka (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean the Minimi article is much better? It's currently a start class and without serious work won't reach B. You trashed what?--Patton^t/c 11:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, as well. This article is clearly better-developed than FN Minimi. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of the 1000 rpm speed setting

The article needs to have a clearer description of the weapon's various speeds including its two cyclic speeds: 750 and 1000. One of those two is called cyclic but both are technically cyclic speeds. Also, nothing in the article mentions sustained fire speed which is said (in The Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons) to be either 75 or 85 rounds per minute. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Patton^t/c 15:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference in the rate of fire was due to the gas regulator. It could be turned from the 'normal' setting (smaller gas port) to an 'adverse conditions' setting (larger gas port). The latter was only to be used when the weapon was excessively dirty or under extreme cold conditions. Invariably, it was abused by those desiring a higher rate of fire, and resulted in premature wear on the weapon. The Army has since switched to 'monoblock' barrels that have a single gas port setting. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For a reference to the current single gas setting, you can check out the old FN Manufacturing product page for the M249 at the Internet Archive. They have copies of their webpages going back to 1998. However, the stock photo shows the old style barrel with the adjustable gas regulator. Contrast this to more recent photos at the FNH USA website which show the monoblock barrels. In addition, you can find the product page for the original M249 SPW (circa 2000) and contrast its configuration against the Mk 46 Mod 0 and the more recent Mk 46 Mod 1 standard. --D.E. Watters (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception and external links

I have moved the reception section back to be a subsection of the design section, as it preserves some chronology. I have also removed the external links section as the one link listed ther was an innapropriate link to the manufacturer's website. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided – "14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." --Patton^t/c 15:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Patton, your interpretation of the guideline is incorrect. This is not a list of manufacturers, it is THE manufacturer. I'm putting the maker of the gun back in. To me, this is a no-brainier though if the concensus is against inclusion of the manufacturer of firearms (I SERIOUSLY doubt this will be the case), then said concensus needs to be addressed at WP:GUN and WP:MILHIST first as it whould apply to all firearms and milhist articles. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears you misread. It says lists of links to manufacturers websties, this is a link to a manufacturer's website. Any discussion of this guideline should go on the talk page, becuase it doesn't cover just guns, but every article we currently have.--Patton^t/c 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I didn't misread. I believe you are misinterpreting. It reads, "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." I interpret this as meaning that you should, well, avoid lists that serve no other purpose. For instance, a list to manufacturers of televisions or manufacturers of cars. This is an article about the M249 and a link to the sole manufacturer is not only appropriate, it is the norm on virtually all other gun articles. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see understand how you are interpreting it now and it makes sense, I as misinterpreting.--Patton^t/c 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nukes4tots. Specific external links that are the official sites of the article subject are good. Indiscriminate lists of links are bad. E.g., Boeing 747 should link to boeing.com, but Jet should not. //roux   17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rifling twist of XM249

I don't know where you got the idea that the XM249 had a 1/6" rifling twist. That would have been double the rate of twist then used by the US military to stabilize M193 Ball and M196 Tracer, along with the experimental XM777 Ball and XM778 Tracer. Entries for the FN Minimi in Jane's Infantry Weapons from 1976 to 1979 indicate that it had a 1/9" rifling twist suitable for FN's experimental SS101 Ball and L102 Tracer. While that would have still been compatible with the US ammunition then in service, it is certainly possible that they made 1/12" barrels just for the US military. The 1980 edition of Jane's Infantry Weapons would seem to back this, as it listed the Minimi available with the option of 1/12" and 1/7" barrels. The change to a 1/7" twist in the XM249 was not made necessary until the US adoption of the NATO-selected FN SS109 Ball and L110 Tracer as the XM855 and XM856 respectively. (And by the way, if they had actually changed from 1/6" to 1/7", that would have been a decrease in the rate of twist, not an increase.) --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I got hte 1/6 from "21st century small armws: The world's great infantry weapons", though yes, it is a decrease, corrected.--Patton^t/c 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NATO specs for a 5.56mm are 1-in-7. The source you quote, "21st Century Small Arms," is known to be riddled with inaccuracies. It is a table-top book not fit for research as a secondary source. Sorry, there are lots of poor sources out there. If memory serves, even FN says it has a 1-in-7 twist barrel. For the record, 1-in-7 is very fast for the standard 62gr SS109/M855 bullet. 1-in-9 is optimum. The faster twist was intended to stabilize the longer tracer bullet. 1-in-7 will stabilize up to around a 77gr bullet, however it does poorly with older M193. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the book's list of errors, it makes conflicting claims in the entry for the M249 SPW. On one hand, it notes that the magazine well was eliminated from the SPW. Later, it talks about how it can accept M16 magazines, and that the rate of fire will change when it is fed from a magazine. How do you insert a magazine in a weapon that has no magazine well? --D.E. Watters (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see on Google Books, your source says nothing about the rate of twist. It only notes that the barrel has six grooves. The number of grooves does not equal the rate of twist. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes perfect sense. IIRC, the rate of twist for the M249 (Not the MINIMI proper) was always 1-in-7... but I might not remember correctly. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

History

The history of the Squad Automatic Weapon program is a bit off. Through the 1960s, the introduction of a machinegun into the infantry squad was examined in various studies: SAWS (Small Arms Weapons Systems), IRUS (Infantry Rifle Unit Study), and ASARS (Army Small Arms Replacement Study). While there was a brief flirtation with the concept of a fléchette-firing UMG (Universal Machine Gun) during SAWS, most non-7.62mm experiments concentrated on the Stoner 63 LMG. The Stoner 63 LMG even saw combat in Vietnam with the USMC (briefly in 1967) and on a wider scale with the US Navy SEAL teams.

While the Army Small Arms Program (ARSAP) included plans for a 5.56mm LMG as early as 1968, no funds were budgeted. Studies did begin of improved 5.56mm ammunition. The earliest reference to theoretical studies of alternative calibers did not appear until 1969. In July 1970, the US Army finally approved an Advanced Development Objective for the LMG. At this time, the nomenclature "Squad Automatic Weapon" was introduced. Actual design of alternative cartridges did not begin until July 1971. A month later, Frankford Arsenal decided upon two designs: a 6mm cartridge as well as a completely new 5.56mm cartridge based upon a much larger case. None of these were finalized by the time that the Army published a Materiel Needs Document for the SAW in March 1972. The final 6mm cartridge design was not approved until May. Sometime before the end of Fiscal Year 1972 (ending June 30, 1972), development contracts for the SAW were let to Philco Ford and Maremont. Rodman Laboratory at Rock Island Arsenal also began work on its own design.

When the time came for developmental and operational testing of the SAW candidates, there were three 5.56mm contenders besides the before mentioned 6mm candidates. The former included a M16 HBAR, the FN Minimi, and the HK 23A1. The initial round of tests ended in December 1974. In February 1976, the Minimi and Rodman SAW were selected for further development. At this time, opinions were beginning to sour on the 6mm SAW cartridge. By June, it was requested that the SAWS Materiel Needs Document be revised to emphasize standard 5.56mm ammunition. In October, the requested revisions were approved, and bids were solicited for the conversion of the Rodman SAW to 5.56mm. With the caliber conversion, the Rodman SAW designation changed from XM235 to XM248. A new M16 HBAR variant, the XM106, was developed in 1978, and soon after, HK lobbied to include their HK 21A1 converted to 5.56mm (instead of the standard 7.62mm NATO) in future SAW testing. The latter was designated the XM262. Testing of the four candidates resumed in April 1979.

In May 1980, the FN XM249 was selected as the best choice for future development on the grounds of performance and cost. The HK XM262 reportedly placed a close second. In September, FN was awarded a "maturity phase" contract for further development of the XM249. Testing of the new XM249E1 variant began in June 1981. The official adoption and standardization took place on February 1, 1982.

Although found to be reliable and accurate, the M249E1 was considered to present unacceptable hazards in the form of an exposed hot barrel and sharp edges. In addition, there were complaints that the front sight required special adjustment tools. In August 1985, Under Secretary of the US Army James R. Ambrose suspended M249 production pending the development of the Product Improvement Package (PIP). Congress deleted funds for the M249 from the Fiscal Year 1986 defense budget. Adding insult to injury, Congress retroactively set aside Fiscal Year 1985 funds for the M249 program for other purposes, including retirement and pay raises. The 1,100+ M249E1 already issued were to remain in use, but be retrofitted with the PIP kit when it became available. The remaining 7,000+ M249E1 were to stay in storage at depots until corrective changes could be made. --D.E. Watters (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Source?--Patton^t/c 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it comes from Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed. edited by Dr. Edward Ezell. While it was published 25+ years ago, it includes the most comprehensive history published so far concerning the Squad Automatic Weapon program. Other parts come directly from individual US Army reports. The bits concerning Frankford Arsenal's development of SAW ammunition comes from an article by the Woodin Laboratory published in the January-February 1980 issue of "The International Cartridge Collector", the official publication of the International Cartridge Collectors Association (now the International Ammunition Association). William Woodin coauthored two (soon to be three) authoritative books on the history of US military small arms ammunition development. The information will likely be duplicated in the upcoming third volume, as it is supposed to cover post-WW2 developments through the closing of Frankford Arsenal. One of his coauthors, Frank Hackley, was the last commander of Frankford Arsenal.

While we are talking about sources, it appears to me that some of your citations do not match up with what you included in the article. For instance, you wrote that the CMG-1 was one of the SAW entries. Your cited source specifically states that it was not one of the candidates. (The source however incorrectly states that the CMG-1 was a magazine fed, heavy barreled M16. While the CMG-1 did share a couple of parts in common with the M16, a simple visual comparison will show that they are not the same weapon. In addition, the CMG-1 was belt fed.) In any case, Colt had already dropped the CMG-1 for the completely different CMG-2. You then state that all of the SAW candidates except the Minimi were dropped for safety reasons. Your source only claims that the M16 HBAR and HK 23 were dropped. (Other accounts, such as Ezell, concur on the elimination of the HK 23, but claim that the M16 HBAR was dropped due to its limited magazine capacity. Your source also incorrectly claims that the M16 HBAR was chambered in 6mm.) None of your sources back up the article's claim that the M249 was adopted in 1981. (One of your sources even incorrectly claims that it was adopted in 1990!) --D.E. Watters (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this is accurate type it in wikitext with references and insert into article.--Patton^t/c 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I do believe my account is accurate; however, I am quite clueless as to the proper Wiki method of inserting citations and references. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I can assist you then. Just tell me the page and the book you got each major point from and I'll put it in the article with citations.--Patton^t/c 13:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall we discuss the particulars in my Talk page, or yours? --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here?--Patton^t/c 22:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out how to make a personal Sandbox page, and I am playing with it there. I think I may have figured out the proper citation style, but I need to go back and add the full references. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, User:D.E. Watters/Sandbox/M249 History. You can make those references display at the bottom by adding {{reflist}} to the bottom.--Patton^t/c 23:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Operational history

incoprated into article

---

I believe that it's also notable to mention use during the Debacle in Somalia as well given the limited conflicts where the M249 has actually been employed. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I will, this is work in progress, will insert into article when finished.--Patton^t/c 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[7]

I couldn't find any sources. If you hknow of any please link.--Patton^t/c 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

M249 Para vs. M249 SPW

They are not the same weapon. The Para is a basic M249 with only a short barrel and collapsible buttstock installed. The SPW had a collapsable stock and a short barrel; however, the SPW's barrel was not as short as the Para. The big difference with the SPW was the elimination of the mounting lug and magazine well. The SPW was also a few pounds lighter. BTW: I don't think you'll find any solid sources supporting any of the E suffix designations except for the XM249E1/M249E1. In addition, there are now Mod 1 versions of the Mk 46 and Mk 48. Among the changes were revisions to the handguards and the readdition of the carrying handle to the barrel. --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok will add that back in, I just came across a book that said they were the same thing, obviously an unreliable source. The "E" designations came from some website so you may be right.--Patton^t/c 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Weight

I don't know where you got the weight of 22 lbs. It might be that much when loaded with 200 rds, but the FN Manufacturing and FNH USA websites list its empty weight as 16.5 lbs. --D.E. Watters (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's 22 pounds when loaded, it says that in the article.--Patton^t/c 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that results in misleading comparisons to the other weapons mentioned in the text whose empty weights are given instead. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Patton^t/c 13:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The current listed weight of the M249 SPW is too high. The FN Manufacturing website listed it as 12.6 lbs. You can find copies of the old pages at the Internet Archive.[8] You'll also find the claim concerning the compatability with the M4 SOPMOD kit, which you deleted. --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed.--Patton^t/c 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison Chart Weights

You are still mixing loaded and unloaded weights, listing them all as loaded weights. It is very misleading. --D.E. Watters (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles on the weapons don't say whether that's loaded or not. WIll correct.--Patton^t/c 19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. No I didn't make it up lol, they all apprently weigh 6.8kg loaded...--Patton^t/c 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't completely fixed yet. The M1918A2 BAR, M240B, and M249 Para weights are unloaded. FWIW: The 2006 edition of Jane's Infantry Weapons shows the RPK at 7kg loaded with a 75rd drum. It also has the Ameli at 8.3kg loaded with 200rd. The current Combat Ammunition Pack being procured for the M240B holds a 50rd belt.

I've revised them.--Patton^t/c 13:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The BAR's loaded weight is way too high now. A 20rd magazine of .30-06 does not weigh 16 pounds. --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too but I searched google books. 3 books said it weighed 34.8 pounds.--Patton^t/c 16:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You or your sources must have confused the M1918 and M1919, both Browning designs but very different. The latter is definitely closer to the 35 pound figure. I found a couple of old military sources on Google Books that show a M1918 BAR's loaded magazine as 1 pound, 7 ounces. To prevent confusion on the weapon's weight, note that the sources give the weight of the lighter M1918 variant instead of the heavier M1918A2, which was the definitive variant.[9]

Comparisons to other LMG

I can sort of see the RPK comparison, although it does not have near the same ammunition capacity even with a drum magazine. The RPD, while obsolete, is closer in principle to the Minimi/M249 than the RPK, and was distributed more widely than the Ameli or Ultimax will ever hope to be. The latter two weapons combined have nowhere near the market penetration of the Minimi despite all three having been on the market for nearly the same amount of time. It is like comparing the global popularity of the Rolling Stones versus Golden Earring, or Toyota subcompacts versus the Yugo. While the Ultimax was submitted for the USMC IAR competition, it was eliminated from further consideration. A better comparison might be the more recent IWI Negev and HK MG4, but these haven't made much of an impact in the market either. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the RPD may be more widespread, though IMO the Ameli and Ultimax are fine in there.--Patton^t/c 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison should be limited to weapons that are reasonably equivalent in caliber as well as size and intended implementation. I think the proper comparison weapons should be the Negev, MG4, RPK-74, Ultimax, and M240. The BAR is obsolete, the RPK is not really proper, and the Ameli is a relatively obscure one. Also, compare apples to apples in terms of weight. List the weight of the weapon loaded, with bipod and sling. Also, list the most common variant.

Can we come to a consensus on these five weapons in the M249 Comparison chart? The Negev, MG4, RPK-74, Ultimax, and M240? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BAR needs to be there because it had essentailly the same role as the M249. Take out the M240 leave the BAR.--Patton^t/c 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the M240 needs to be there as a control. Perhaps M16 as well. The comparison between the BAR and the M249 is spurious. Different caliber, different era, different feed mechanism, etc. I'll agree that it's employed in a similar manner, but the US had long abandoned the SAW for, what about 20 or 30 years prior to resurrecting it in the mid-80's? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about taking out the M240 and putting in the M16? Readers will be much more familiar with the M16 than any other weapon. We'll forget the BAR as well.--Patton^t/c 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd also like to add the RPD, however I can't find a loaded weight anywhere. Is there a good place to find that info? The intent on having the M240, though, was to emphasize that the SAW was intended to fit between the M16 and the M240. If that makes sense, I'd really like to keep it there for prespective, but if there's no consensus it's no big deal. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I intended that also. I have a brilliant idea we never thought of: we make the table bigger :P. That way we can add both the BAR and the M240. I will do it now--Patton^t/c 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of all the things that slowed me down, apart from an ongoing stalker jabbing at me, I am completely unable to find the loaded weight on the RPD... Drat. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

According to [10] it's 8.5 kg loaded. I don't know how relaible that is as they give an incorrect unloaded weight.--Patton^t/c 11:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sources Regarding PIP Kit and Later Upgrades

I don't have time to play with these, but I thought that someone else might.

Background issues for PIP kit - "How Pentagon Buyers Get Disarmed" [11]

Details of PIP kit (note how long it took to be finally accepted) - "PIP M249 MACHINEGUN COMPLETES ACCEPTANCE" [12]

Soldier Enhancement Program improvements (M5 collapsible buttstock & 100 rd assault pack, AKA: 'soft pack') - "STIFFENING INFANTRY SUPPORT" [13]

Additional upgrades (M5 buttstock, optic rail feed cover, & Para short barrel) - "UNITED STATES - M249 UPGRADES" [14]

New carbine style collapsible buttstock - "New collapsible buttstock available" [15]

New bipod - "NSNs for new bipod parts" [16]

Overview of M249 development, including Mk 46 and Mk 48. Also discusses competitors. "Lightweight, but heavy oomph: combat experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and other asymmetric conflicts is influencing the development of compact light machine guns that can dominate the 'mid-range battlespace'." [17]

Best wishes, --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have added extra info based on this. I couldn't read the last link in full because I live in Ireland and don't have a postcode.--Patton^t/c 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just changed the last link to a more accessible mirror of the article. It should show up for you now. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for M249E2 designation

The FAS page does not use the designation M249E2 for the PIP version. You'll find no online sources for the designation on anything other than game sites or mirrors of previous versions of this Wiki page. I realize that there is a certain amount of logic that the designation would follow the pre-PIP M249E1 (of which you can find mention in old editions of Army manuals). --D.E. Watters (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I read about the "M249E2" somewhere and thought it was FAs. Apparently not. I jsut renamed it to "M249 PIP" and removed any reference to "M249E2" seeing as we can't reference it.--Patton^t/c 18:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple of problems

Not sure where to put this, but since the FAC looks dead I'll just put it here:

The sentence "expanding gases from the burning of bullet propellant move a..." in Design details is way over simplified. Not really sure what should be done with it though.

The regular in "usually a combination of four M855 regular ball rounds and one M856 tracer round from..." needs to be moved to before M855 or removed entirely.

The caliber in the Comparision of machine guns in US and foreign service table should be changed to cartridge. Caliber is not nearly ambiguous as cartridge, for instance there is alot of difference in .30-06 and 7.62x39 but you would never know that with just the caliber. Also, "Comparison" at the top of the table is misspelled. — DanMP5 16:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FACs are usually very slow moving and go for long periods without comments, so in future you can put commonets there, I have it watchlisted, and so do two other people. That expanding gasses sentence isn't over simplified, it's exactly what happens. It's also why explosions blow things around; expanding gases. I don't quite understand what you mean by your second point. As for hte thing abou cartridges, I agree entriely, fixing now...--Patton^t/c 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as "Bullet Propellant". I'll try to rewrite it so it makes sense to even laymen. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Variants section help with citations

I can't seem to figure out how to get the citations to work for the info I added about MK48's in the variants section. Could somebody with better citation-fu than myself please fix whatever it is I can't seem to get right. Thanks!SB Pete (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Side note, the sites from whence my info on the MK48 Mods 0 and 1 came were the following

http://www.defensereview.com/fn-mk48-mod-0-762mm-lightweight-machine-gun-for-us-military-specopsspecwar/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mk48.htm http://12.146.235.1/products/m249fam/mk48mod1.htm http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm

Thanks SB Pete (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)