Talk:M134 Minigun

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Other variations

M134 Minigun mounted on M21 Armament Subsystem (Which also includes huge M158 Rocket Launcher), used on Huey Gunships as shown in the film King Kong (1976) (A sequence of which was re-used for the film The Running Man).
Three MXU-470/A minigun modules with GAU-2B/A (M134) Miniguns in an AC-47D "Spooky" gunship - 7.62x51mm
Garwood Industries M134G, 2 flange barrel clamp with EOTech red dot sight - 7.62x51mm NATO
Garwood Industries M134G, 4 flange barrel clamp - 7.62x51mm NATO
DeGroat Tactical Armaments Minigun - 7.62x51mm NATO
XM214 Microgun - 5.56x45mm NATO
Diagram of the XM53 Armament Subsystem with XM196 Minigun - 7.62x51mm NATO
M134 Minigun with a mounted stand.

Discussion - Dillion-Aero/'Microgun'

The M134 Minigun is now manufactured By Dillon Aero as the MK44. Dillon Aero also upgrade GE M134's.

Although rumored, The hand held Miniguns are NOT XM214 Microguns.

See the difference here:

I erased the GAU/19A because there's already a page. Drjuki 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Far too many false positives.

"Everything with rotating barrels" is not a sensible definition to use when addressing whether it's in video games or not. Dongs 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Handheld variant discussion:

Is it at all plausible? I realize the recoil would be astronomical, but wouldn't the weight of the gun itself dampen it a bit? And if it is plausible, would it at all be useful in a combat situation? That's One Angry Duck 04:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooo.
Descriptive Answer: You still need to factor in the weight of the amount of ammo needed to be effective. 2,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO would weigh over 100 pounds. At the high end, 6,000 rpm, that's 20 seconds of firepower. Low end, say 1,250 rpm as seen in Predator, that's about a minute and a half worth of ammo. Then there's the power supply. Think how much a heavy duty car battery weighs. The gun would require something that provides alot of electrical power/torque to operate. So the weight of the gun + weight of the ammo + weight of the batteries + force of recoil = Noooooooooooooo. See the Predator page for more info. Also, if you are not going to be moving because the gun and ammo are stationary, why would you fire the gun by hand instead of having it on a fixed stand?--Gunkatas 06:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC

It would be very convienent to have a 6,000 RPM chainsaw in your hands at any time, but we can only watch movies that make them this way. Maybe making it fire in some sort of burst would make it conservative in the way of ammunition, but then there is always the weight issue with ammunition. There would have to be some sort of lightweight special ammo made for it, anyway it would be to much trouble to even bother making such a weapon. CZAR 00:32, 28 November.

What if a second man in a two-man crew carried all the ammo, and the other guy just held the gun? That's One Angry Duck 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Say there was a second guy to carry all the ammo and extra batteries. Fine. How well coordinated would those two have to be in order to be effective in the field? Let's say that it's a two man team, one carrying the gun, one carrying everthing else. With the current system, the second guy would be carrying his own weight in gear (clothes, body armor, ammo, water, etc...) and would not likely have a weapon of his own, except maybe a handgun. They would also have to be extermely coordinated in their movements all the time. If the guy with the gun makes a quick 180 degree turn, the guy with the ammo would have to be at least twice as fast or else everything would get tangled. Also, the length of the feed and power cables would have to be short enough not to get stuck in anything, but long enough so that the two people can maneuver. For this to actually work, you would need two people that would move and react at the same speed in the same way every time. That's alot of hassle when you can just equip those two with two LMGs like the M249 or a single GPMG like the M240. --Gunkatas 17:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Consider that the Dillion needs 24VDC and 58amps to run. A couple of aircraft batteries with sufficient amperage to operate the motor weigh about 125-180 pounds. Hand-held isn't plausible. You'd need two men to carry ammo and batteries, and they wouldn't be able to do much more than struggle to walk along. Forget running with it. At best, it could be crew-served, with a four-man team pulling stuff on a cart.
The hand held Minigun we used in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers 2 was a self contained unit with ammo, fire control and battery mounted in the backpack. But it is impossible to fire the weapon live due to the rapid muzzle climb using live ammunition. --phoenixent 13:52, 18 November 2011 (CST)

I know that the last time they publicly sold the Predator/T2 minigun it had a set of Live barrels in addition to the blanked ones. I'm not sure how much live ammo that has gone through that particular weapon but I do know that the weapon's lower than normal rate of fire (1,250RPM, according to it's last sales add). would put it in the same recoil energy as something like a HK21E or a FN MAG that someone has cranked open the gas port. Difficult to control but not impossible.Still any minigun with a 2,000-4,000rpm gearbox is a strictly mounted proposition.Rockwolf66 02:15, 19 November 2011 (CST)

Do you actually need special barrels to make a minigun fire blanks as it is electrically driven rather than gas/recoil, or is it more of a safety/legality thing the ensure there is no way it can fire live rounds? --commando552 04:52, 19 November 2011 (CST)
You do not need special blank only barrels for the minigun to work on blanks. As for the reduced rpm on the Predator/T2 minigun is that Stembridge had to replace the motor after Predator with a 12v variant and that in turn gave the weapon a lower fire rate. The hand held unit I built for GI Joe was tested with the self contained pack at Dillion with live rounds and was completely impossible to control due to the quick muzzle climb.--phoenixent 11:27, 19 November 2011 (CST)
Wait so you are saying that the gun had an origional Minigun motor while filming Predator? I guess that's what I get for getting my information through an intermediary rather than directly questioning someone who worked on the weapon in question. Really I should start picking the brains of Steve, Al and whoever else I can find who's built or worked on a handheld Minigun in a Hollywood feature and then get all of this information down as it's really interesting and it will kill alot of videogame myths. Rockwolf66 20:19, 19 November 2011 (CST)
That correct so that is why you see a different rate of fire on Predator comparied to T2. Hope this helped you out... --phoenixent 21:25, 19 November 2011 (CST)
The Predator minigun wasn't running at full speed either, from everything I've heard on the subject. If it was you wouldn't be able to see the barrels turning when it fired (as I recall that was the reason the RoF was reduced to begin with, because the director thought it would look better on camera). Evil Tim 21:43, 19 November 2011 (CST)
That had more to due with the camera film speed then the motor on the Minigun. --phoenixent 09:46, 14 December 2011 (CST)
Um...Even if Predator was shot with some kind of high-speed camera I'd have thought it wouldn't matter since it was still screened at 24 frames per second. IIRC (going off an article in Total Film magazine) wasn't it that they reduced the RoF in Predator by gearing it down rather than altering the motor itself? Evil Tim 10:03, 14 December 2011 (CST)
The high-speed cameras are used to slow down action and increase screen time when viewed at 24 frames per second. Most automatic weapon fire is not fully captured on film due to camera speed vs. fire rate. Also you can gear a minigun down but that is not the reason for the difference in fire rate on the Stembridge minigun used on Predator and then Terminator 2--phoenixent 12:53, 19 December 2011 (CST)
I think I once saw a YouTube video featuring GE M134 without flash hider, but with a hand-held configuration, it was on some kind of tripod too. As I can remember I think it was in Knob Creek shooting range... There was also a .22LR Browning M1919. I'll try to find the mysterious video again. TitaniumAlloy (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2013 (EST)

SubMinigun

Would it be possible to use a Minigun chambered in pistol/PDW rounds?

More effective weapons already exist. --Dannyguns (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2017 (EST)
It would not be significantly smaller or lighter; the same issues outlined above still remain. This before you get into the cons of having it chambered for pistol cartridges instead (particularly shorter effective range and less power). All-told, really no way around this one. StanTheMan (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2017 (EST)
There is actually a "hand held" variant in active development by a company called Empty Shell. Here is there Instagram page with several videos of it actually being fired hand held, and it is actually sort of controllable (especially if it is only used with 12V rather than 24V). Although they call it "hand held" it still has the problems of ammo supply and power that no weapon like this could ever fully overcome, I can see it being useful on lighter vehicles and aircraft though. --commando552 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2017 (EST)
According to this, even 5.56mm microguns were ineffective on aircraft due to the low weight of the bullets. --Funkychinaman (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2017 (EST)
This states that it's planned to be used with 24V as well. Also, we kinda became used to seeing real programs replicating movies/video games stuff, but this... WTF? --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2017 (EST)
About the only use I could think of for it would be if you decided to build a point defence system for a tank and were allergic to grenade launchers. And if you're shooting light vehicles, just use a LAW like a normal person :P Evil Tim (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2017 (EST)

IF the Hand held variant was accepted in real life

What role in an infantry squad would it have? would it be some IAR/LMG GPMG?. Also why doesnt it come with some stock/bipod or even a bullpup conversion? :lol

It may be a way of barrel cooling or rapid fire without using a water jacket/qc barrel during a heavy firefight but thats just about it.

Its unusual, its cool and the most macho gun on the screen. But impractical in the real world. Its that this has been discussed billions of times.

There have been designs on patent though but have never been accepted for use in this role.

However, there are firearms that would fill the Minigun role for ground usage: the Pribor 3B and the AO-63 assault rifle which fires up to 6000rpm bursts. Assault rifles, SMGs with more than one barrel, Or simply a GPMG with its ROF adjusted to rapid fire.

Prcsnv 03:00AM 06 March 2014 (UTC)

Patent of a handheld 5.56mm four-barrel rotary gun, circa 1985


^ That's fine, but I wouldn't call any of those 'miniguns' because while they have multiple rotary barrels, that doesn't make them Miniguns, just modern Gatling-style designs. Minigun is short for Mini-Vulcan, named so because the M134 was the near-exact design of the M61 Vulcan cannon scaled down. As for 'filling a Minigun role', I assume you mean squad and platoon/section-level automatic weapons, in which case more typical (and far more practical) light and medium general-purpose machine guns handle that just fine. An actual hand-held 'minigun', in terms of actual deployment, is still unfeasible and remains a film fantasy. StanTheMan (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
I wouldn't call it a "serious military concept," anyone who can convince an overworked clerk that something would work can patent something and that doesn't mean the military actually considered the idea. You might as well say restaurants considered motorised ice cream cones.
The big problem with a handheld rotary gun is that it throws a lot of weight at solving a problem that doesn't exist; an infantryman simply can't carry enough ammunition to feed a gun that burns it off that fast, and can't hold it level enough that the majority of the rounds would actually hit the target (I would imagine the gyroscopic effect of the rotating barrels would also mean it would be tough to actually point it at something without a mounting). If you slow it down then you're carrying a rotor assembly, three extra barrels (in that example) and three extra spare barrels for no benefit at all. And when does an infantryman ever need to fire rounds at 6000rpm in the first place? The volume of fire from rotary weapons is primarily used for firing from unstable or fast platforms and / or at fast-moving targets like aircraft and missiles. Dismounted infantry are not noted for encountering those situations. Evil Tim (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (EDT)

The M134 Minigun has been used on vehicles and naval platforms but only to an extent. Not just the M134 but other aircraft guns with a high rate of fire have been used as infantry weapons, the MG81 and the .303 Browning. As for an infantryman firing at a high ROF, British Commandos used the Vickers K machine gun which fired faster than the Bren and were highly effective. However this would only be an exception for the likes of Special Forces who would want extra firepower over average machine guns. To be serious, the idea of a handheld ultrahigh rate of fire machine gun is still intriguing though but in real life it would be one of the weapons mentioned on here before.

Prcsnv 00:45AM 08/08/2015

Real life alternatives

The idea of a handheld M134 Minigun may be intriguing but in the real world impractical. Does anyone here know of ultrahigh rate of fire weapons that can be handheld?, if so what is the highest ROF?/what is the most suited calibre that can be handled?

Prcsnv 01:20AM 08/08/2015

GShG-7.62

If anyone here wants a discussion.

Article name

Should we just move the page to "M134 Minigun"? It covers both the GE, Dillon, and presumably Garwood models as well. --Funkychinaman (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

I think we should, you forgot about General Dynamics, DeGroat and McNally, anyways. TitaniumAlloy (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2013 (EST)

I agree, cut GE out of the page title. Spartan198 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2014 (EST)

I took care of it (after 3 years of nobody doing it :P). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2017 (EST)
I really think that's something that should have been checked/cleared with some of the admins first, if only to make sure all the redirects and links still work - Otherwise though, I'm pretty much game. StanTheMan (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2017 (EST)



Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Categories
Special
Social Media
Toolbox