Talk:M134 Minigun

Manufacturers

I believe we should remove "DeGroat Tactical Armaments" listed under "manufacturers" because their website states "We sell original GE 7.62mm Miniguns, which have been rebuilt by us." So they are repairing, rebuilding, and servicing existing GE weapons not manufacturing entirely new weapons... http://www.armamentsales.com/miniguns.htm

I also think we should remove "McNally Industries" listed under "manufacturers" because their website states they make "M134 Mini Gun System Components." Like DeGroat they do not appear to be making new or complete weapons. McNally appears to be a supplier for M134 parts. http://www.mcnally-group.com/mcnallyindustries/products/ordnance-systems The only McNally press release I found from them regarding the M134 also supports this as it identifies them as a strategic partner of a M134 manufacturer; Profense. http://www.mcnally-group.com/mcnallyindustries/about/news/mcnally-industries-llc-and-profense-llc-enter-strategic-partnering-agreement-produce-m134

RajanPB (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the McNally reference. USMC had parts support well after G.E. ceased support, all the way up to Dillon systems reaching the fleet. rm975 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Title

Minigun is generic designation. This page specifically refers to the M-134 / GAU-2 / GAU-17 system. Should this page then not be title "M-134 / GAU-2 / GAU-17"? rm975 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Minigun is the term GE created specifically when designing the 7.62 x 51mm, 6 barrel, M-134. So I disagree that it is generic. Perhaps using both would avoid mistakes or misinterpretation? For example, the wikipedia article on maverick missiles is named the "AGM-65 Maverick." updating the title of this article to "M-134 Minigun" would probably be appropriate. RajanPB (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Users

The users section needs to be more like that of Walther P5#Users: stating examples of how citizens of that nation used the gun.

Also have any infantry (boots on the ground) people ever held and used a minigun (while sitting, standing, walking, etc.)? It might be too heavy, but if someone has in a military conflict then that could be something to write in the "Users" section. --User123o987name (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Мініган.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"The "Mini" in the name is in comparison to larger-caliber designs that use a rotary barrel design, such as General Electric's earlier 20 mm M61 Vulcan, and "gun" for the use of rifle ammunition as opposed to autocannon shells. " That's a little bit misleading. It was called the "minigun" because it was directly derived from GE's 20mm Vulcan cannon. The Vulcan was the first and only rotary type cannon in service, so the name isn't to differentiate if from "larger caliber designs", but from the Vulcan alone. It is a "Mini" gun because it's a scaled down Vulcan able to be mounted on lighter aircraft, firing rifle caliber ammunition. It's a "gun" because it's a gun. An autocannon is also a gun. They could have easily renamed the Vulcan the "Megagun" to match and no one could have said they were inaccurate to do so. The name "minigun" was not a serious attempt at making up a descriptor for the new class of weapon, it was mere marketing. The name was catchy and caught on, and so people use it generically for any multiple barrel weapon, even heavy autocannons sometimes, but in reality it's only a "Minigun" because the Vulcan. It was developed before there WERE any other designs to diffentiate from.

Idumea47b (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)