Talk:FN MAG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Flag of Belgium This page relates to the WikiProject Belgium, a project to create and improve Belgium-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can join the project, and help with our open tasks.

Flag of the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region

Flag of the French Community and the Walloon Region

Flag of the Brussels-Capital Region

Flag of the German-speaking community

Contents

[edit] Buttstock Question

Is the FN MAG buttstock interchangable with the retractable stock of the FN Minimi? User:EX STAB

No. The mag butt mounts on the weapon by sliding downwards on grooves clicking into a locked position. The Minimi butt is mounted on the weapon by two takedown pins. A complete redesign of one of the weapons receivers would be required to make the butts interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedpat (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

Surely this articel has most everything the average reader ever needs to know about the weapon. GraemeLeggett 08:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the things that many of the US weapons have, such as history of creation and deployment, remarks or opinions of soldiers in the field, and so on, this article appears incomplete. Otherwise, I have no real reason not to remove the {{stub}} designation. I don't really care. Avriette 11:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme. Any time you want to destub and shiny up stuff, it's good by me. :) Avriette 12:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] table

template → table... why GraemeLeggett 07:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operators

One operator of the weapon is missing: Austria. As far as i know, when the leopard 2 a4 tanks were purchased from the netherlands, they already came with FN MAGs installed. Despite the MG74 being the standard GPMG, the FN MAG was adopted as the weapon for the leopard tanks (and beeing exclusively used on the leopards).

[edit] M240 joined 2 this artical

hey im trying to get the m240 be joined to this artical who agress. this is like the m16 there are many differnt names in many fdfiffernt countries but it always gos to countrys of orgins name.(Esskater11 23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

  • FOR - I'm for it, just like the M249 will be merged with the MINIMI soon. I've got a big rework of this article planned, maybe in a few days I'll take care of it. Koalorka 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • AGAINST - You'll lose too much specific info on the M240. D.E. Watters 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I understand the reasonable logic behind this proposal as well. However, the history of the adoption and subsequent use of the M240 by the United States military in my mind is too large a piece to be placed in an article for the FN MAG58 as whole. The M240 has spawned an entirely separate series of variants as well, and only a portion have direct equivalents within the MAG58 family. FN Markets the two systems separately. This is the same reason why I support the continued separation of the FN Minimi and M249 articles. The M240 article should be kept for the depth it goes into on the topic and the FN MAG58 for the information on the system at base and its original development history. -- Thatguy96 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The M240B is nothing like this weapon, it in fact is the bigger brother of the M249 SAW, both in assembly and in mechanics. The weapon being discussed is more reminice of the M60, which was phased out by the 240B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.17.152 (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • AGAINST Was once asked to reduce M240 to a redirect -> FN MAG in German wiki. Refrained from doing it. Bad idea there, bad idea here as well. M240 specifics warrant a separate article. --Atirador (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT It's the same gun, people. --Asams10 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The weapons are dissimilar enough to merit different pages. The FN-MAG has variable headspace, while the M-240 has fixed headspace. Considering that headspace one of the main distinguishing features of any machinegun, that difference is pretty striking. EvilCouch (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is there a page for each model of Glock pistol? WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument for or against this merge proposal. EvilCouch (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I call BS on the headspace claim. The original M240 was simply an MAG Model 60-20. That's the only difference, the name.... The 240D has an electric trigger, different charging handle, flash hider and gas valve. The M240C is fed from the right, that's it. The M240E1 has a V-shaped butterfly trigger. The M240G is a MAG 60-20 but with a different gas valve and flash hider. The M240B is an upgraded M240G and it has a perforated heatguard, Picatinny rail, new stock and an ammunition container. That's it. I don't care how much misinformed opposition this merger gets but it will go through. If not, anyone with a bit of nationalist flare will create an article for what their country calls the MAG in their country's service. We're talking about over 40 "variants" here... MAKES NO SENSE, and is against policy. Most of the M240 article is either repeated from the MAG or useless "fluff". Koalorka (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The FN MAG article asserts that it has variable headspace. Speaking as a former M240B gunner, I can tell you without reservation that gunners do not set the headspace of the M240. Also, you have it backwards about the M240 repeating info from the FN Mag article; the FN MAG article copied from the M240 one. I know this because I was the one to write the Operation section. EvilCouch (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to see a source for that claim, it's fiction IMO. I'm also a C6 gunner, basically the Canadian designation for the 60-20, bolt headspace was never a factor. Even if the M240 was the first to be written about in detail (likely due to the fact that the designation is far more common than the original MAG name) makes the merge even easier. Koalorka (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Exactly the L108A1 SAW is the British name for the FN Minimi, it could have a few small minor changes but it doesnt need its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.130.216 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT The article should be about the weapon, not its use by one particular army. Nobody is demanding a separate page for the L7 GPMG, which has a much longer service history that the M240 does and has nearly twice as many distinct variants. The previous claim that the M240 is not an MAG, but a bigger version of the M249, is BS. So is the headspace claim; the L7 has fixed headspace, and it's just a standard MAG58 (as is the M240). Basically, to say that the M240 merits a separate article is just chauvinism. By all means have an article on US use of the FN MAG, but don't try to pretend it's a different weapon, because it isn't.FergusM1970 (talk) 12:35, 9 Apr 2008 (GMT)
Actually some were, but the separate L7 page also got merged in (which is why you'll notice the description of British service and the listing of their variants is much more detailed than others). -- Thatguy96 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The M240 does seem to have evolved into its own class so I would not support any sort of merge proposal, however I do recommend maintaining the M240 information within the MAG article, since the evolution did start at the MAG and then move towards US production and subsequent design enhancements. Koalorka (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Design

"The downward locking bolt drives the belt feed system, which is a similar type to that of the MG42" Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this weapon uses a breech block, not a bold. And if my weapon had a downward locking bold I would be taking it to an armouror fast, as that would indicate a major malfunction in my weapons operation. Pissedpat 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolt and Breech Block are almost synonymous from what I can tell. A bolt is defined as "2. a sliding bar in a breech-loading firearm that ejects an empty cartridge and replaces it and closes the breech" 1 whereas a breech block is defined as "a movable piece of metal for closing the breech in certain firearms." 2 If a bolt closes the breech, and a breech block is a piece of metal for closing the breech on certain firearms, then they are the same. No dictionary definition is available quickly online, but Bolt Carrier Group should be equally synonymous. -- Thatguy96 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initials

Quick question: doesn't MAG stand for Mitrailleuse d'Appui Generale rather than Mitrailleur A Gaz? I recall Ian Hogg making a point about this in one of his publications and normally consider him to be a fairly sound authority, but I thought I'd put this in the discussion to see what's the general consensus rather than attempt to unilaterally change the article!

Since nobody's voiced any objections, I've changed it! Chris 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I Agree. I too know about some of Ian Hogg's work and nevertheless i´ve always seen MAG as being Mitrailleur à Gaz. Whoever changed it back, PLEASE, say why!--Artur claro (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

  • any chance of a photo?

[edit] "Gimpy"

Can I ask for clarification that the GPMG really is nicknamed the "gimpy" by the forces? I heard ages ago, although I forget where (as usual), that it was never actually referred to as "gimpy" by its users but that the name was a snappy-sounding creation for a TV programme. I'm inclined to think that whoever made that claim was probably just being contrary, but I thought that the question was worth raising. -- Chris (blather • contribs) 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The GPMG was certainly often referred to as a "Gimpy" throughout my fifteen years of TA service, although that was very much a nick-name. It was also commonly referred to as the "GPMG". During platoon level infantry officer training and at Sandhurst it was invariably referred to by the directing staff as "The Gun" or "Gun". Since we were invariably trained by regular infantry NCOs from multiple regiments I can only conclude that "Gimpy" was a common way to refer to it throughout the British Army. I also remember that it was incredibly heavy to carry and quite unpopular if you were saddled with it on exercise.

Steve UK 8 September 2006

The Royal Marines do not refer to it as a Gimpy and consider that to be army slang. I've heard it called "The Gun" or "The General" but most commonly it's just called a GPMG.

Chris UK 11 Oct 2006

[edit] interwiki of zh:T-74排用機槍

Plz help me to stop the interwiki of zh:T-74排用機槍 , the T-74 only a ROC(Taiwan) variants .-ZH Evers (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate M240 information

If there is not going to be a merge in the foreseeable future, then why have this duplicate information on the FN MAG page? It is not relevant to the MAG if the M240 is not included as there is no connection to MAG models in any of the descriptions. It is duplication of information in the M240 article, however, which is linked from in the paragraph above. I left mention of the various models, but if people want information on them, they should go to the M240 page until such time as it is merged into this one. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)