Talk:XM214 Microgun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hollywood Style?[edit]

I don't understand the reasoning about the ROF cut down to 1000-1200 rpms. The M249 and other LMGs have a cyclic rate of 7-900 or so, but that's just ideally. In the real world the max is 200/minute with barrel changes every minute--awkward to say the least in a vicious firefight. I suppose you could adjust the gas operation to near the cyclic rate, if you're willing to risk meltdown and/or the gun blow up in your face. That said, there must be something to having a wall of lead at 5 or 6 times the LMG rate. Especially in some urban combat situations. Even in 5.56mm, twenty shots a sec could probably stop dead any unarmored vehicle and toast its occupants. Since there are claims that the Hollywood microgun was tested and rejected, it must have something to do with the weight and clumsiness as well as firing technique, rather than the ROF. Maybe they could look at it again and consider the 4.7 caseless and a combination of electric reliability and gas operation to cut down on the mass.Mytg8 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Hollywood M134 is that increased cyclic rates require bigger/heavier electric motors that draw more electricity which requires bigger/heavier batteries. Then there is the issue of torque from the increased rotational speed of the barrels. In the real world, you also have to factor in the weight of the ammunition. Either you carry the same amount as usual and run out 5 times faster, or you have to suffer under 5 times the weight, to fire the same amount of time.
Gas operation was tried with the M134's little known sibling, the XM133. However, you still need something to start the spinning of the barrels along with the operation of the ammo feeder/delinker. D.E. Watters 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the 5.56mm XM214 Six-Pack by G.E. was stripped down and tested years ago as a handheld. It was rejected for several reasons. The reported ROF was reduced during the test from 4000 to 1000/1200 rpm, which is still 5 or 6 times the rate of most LMGs and SAWs--its got to have a substantial effect on the battlefield. The page here says its little improvement over the cyclic rate of the M249 and was one reason for the cancellation of the project. I was just pointing out that it’s a big improvement of rate of fire that you can't get in MGs. Weight and awkward handling were probably the biggest reasons for the no-go. Gas operation--the Russians had 12.7 and 23mm gatlings operated solely by gas, AFAIK, and they were spun up to speed faster than the equivalent American models. Maybe they jammed and came to a halt easier than the U.S. guns. At http://www.montysminiguns.com/brian.htm there is a modern version of a handheld XM214--granted there is a big difference between a 5.56 NATO and a .22LR and the self-contained magazine is probably too small, but it appears to be doable.Mytg8 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this would be a useful concept but i havent found anything else similar except the russian 4 barreled GShG 7.62 minigun. Besides, would an XM214 chambered in .30 carbine calibre provide similar effect to 5.56 or .22lr?.

User:Winky Bill 19:25PM, 4/10/2007 (UTC)

Most sources I remember reading had the XM214 listed as having a maximum cyclic rate of 10,000rpm, putting it as the modern record holder for the fastest automatic weapon aside from projects such as Metal Storm. This seems rather noteworthy, so it should be looked into. 76.176.85.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


if they wanted to make it "holly-wood style" a start would bew fewer, shorter barrels and a lower rate of fire(whic would make a smaller mag practical) reducing weight and size. i wonder why they aren't working on something like that?124.177.40.107 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there's no point. A Hollywood-style hip-fired minigun doesn't really serve any actual purpose that couldn't be served by another weapon system. A rotary-barreled machine gun is a complicated device that is heavy, loud, difficult to control and would be difficult to service in the field. Since there's no need for a single soldier to cut down a forest of trees while screaming... Atypicaloracle (talk)

"Old Painless," the minigun that appears in Predator and Terminator 2, had its ROF decreased for two reasons: firstly to save money on ammunition, and secondly because Predator's director John McTiernan wanted the barrels to visibly rotate on footage taken with a 24FPS movie camera, meaning a maximum fire rate of 1,440 RPM. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Man-Portable' Minigun Substitutes[edit]

The miniguns in movies had thier rate of fire slowed down to less than 2,000rpm. A Hand-Held Minigun was believed to have been tested by Commandos in the 1970s but was found too bulky, clumbersome and hard to control so therefore the idea was dropped.

The likes of the German MG3 and the Spanish CETME Ameli is sometimes regarded as a 'Minigun' substitute having a high rate of fire.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EX STAB (talk • User:EX STAB 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

By whom? I've never seen a single source that has suggested that. -- Thatguy96 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The main reason that gattling guns rarely sees any use in infantry is that there simply is no need for a rpm that high. Especially not when it comes with awfull bulkiness, horrible weight and a recoil that puts you down before you can yell "Oh Crap!". It is intended to be mounted on aircrafts.

According to the Modern Firearms external link, GE took the microgun off its catalog in the late 1990s. So it was available for 20+ years? It may have not been mass produced, but I'd bet there are 214s out there somewhere--Middle East? Africa? U.S. Spec forces? Mytg8 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images?[edit]

An image would be helpful...--Eddie 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neal submachine gun?[edit]

What's the direct link of a patent for the Neal submachine gun to the XM214?Mytg8 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XM214 Microgun. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on XM214 Microgun. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XM214_Microgun&oldid=1198778663"