Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:M230 chain gun

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

Specifications

[edit]

The PGU-14/B is 30x173mm. Its cartridge case is nominally 173mm long (6.8 inches) and is approximately 290mm (11.4 inches), overall length. The ammunition fired in the M230 gun is 30x113mm. Its cartridge case is nominally 113mm long (4.45 inches) and is approximately 200mm (7.875 inches), overall length. As 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm cartridges are not interchangeable (for example), 30x173mm and 30x113mm are not intechangeable.

The FAS/Global Security article on 30mm cannon ammunition is wrong. It implies an interchangeability that doesn't exist. Professor Liolios perpetuates the error and mis-information in his DU paper.

The only ammunition used with the M230 Apache gun is Target Practice (TP), High-Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP), dummy cartridges (for maintenance) and High-Pressure Test (HPT) used to proof barrels during production. Reference to a High-Explosive Incendiary (HEI) cartridge is in error; this ammo has not been produced in any volume or supplied for general field use.

Madog0on (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)madog0on[reply]

Ah, thanks. Appears to be yet another Global Security error. — DanMP5 03:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

specifications, redundant/obsolete (replaced) list on main page

[edit]

Specifications

[edit]
  • Caliber:30x113mmB
  • Weights:
    • Receiver: 28.6 kg
    • Barrel: 15.9 kg
    • Linked or linkless transfer unit: 5.9 kg
    • Total gun system: 55.9 kg
  • Dimensions:
    • Length: 1638 mm
    • Width: 254 mm
    • Height: 292 mm
  • Barrel life: to 10,000 rounds
  • Rate of fire: single to 625 rounds/minute
  • Time to rate: 0.2 s
  • Time to stop: 0.1 s
  • Clearing method: open bolt
  • Power required: 6.5 hp
  • Maximum range: 4,000 m
  • Effective range: 1,500 m
  • Shells
    • M788 Target Practice (TP) rounds
    • M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) rounds for anti-armor and anti-personnel
    • M799 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds for anti-personnel and anti-materiel

Muzzle Velocity

[edit]

Muzzle velocity is stated to be 0; actual velocity needs to be added. Are2dee2 8:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 1,000 - 1,200 RPM ( Rounds per Minute )

[edit]

The "Use" section appears to have been lifted directly from the globalsecurity.org web site with no indication of source and no indication of permission from the copyright owner. If the original editor has information on the copyright status of this insert, they should comment.

In addition, the inserted section has nothing to do with use of the M230 Chain Gun and has marginal relevance to the topic of the article. 123.127.110.166 (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on M230 chain gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M230 chain gun. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M230 chain gun. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Spooling"

[edit]

It's a chain gun, not a rotary. There's no "spool up". How am I supposed to find a source to prove a negative when people don't usually claim the positive and nobody has therefore seen a need to refute it? Would you find me a source that explicitly says gas-operated assault rifles don't have spool-up times, given that nobody is trying to claim that they do? Why didn't you do this sort of careless no-effort revert six years ago when it was thrown onto the article unsourced instead of now when I'm trying to remove it? Is this supposed to send the message that unsourced material is okay as long as it's been around for six years?

The whole terrible conflation of chain guns and rotaries comes from Wolfenstein and Doom in the first place. I was perhaps uncivil initially because you have been facelessly dismissive instead of helpful even in the slightest.

I'm not sure if it's even okay to use a Youtube video demonstrating the weapon as a source, which is why I have been hesitant to do so and asking you to do it instead, given that the culture around here appears very quick to dismiss the [expletive] out of anon IP users and their actions while letting named users get away with a great deal—like, for example, adding invented material. I'm specifically not picking you out here—as in, I don't mean to accuse you and only you of this—because I have been not-a-second-glance reverted by a much friendlier user who let my counter-revert pass when I pointed out the mistake to them on their talk page, unlike when you simply wiped my talk page note and dismissed it as "trolling". At the same time, I have deleted a number of misinformed assertions from named users—always unsourced, as far as I remember—which have lasted months on their respective articles, if not years; where was this quickness to revert then? Does WP:ASSUME only apply to named users? You even appear to style yourself a great mind reverting vandalism by dumb morons, a herder of cats, and a babysitter; given that I appear to be the latest idiot kitten that you have to herd, is such an assumption representative of the civility you ask of me? 2602:30A:2C5E:7760:2490:B00C:7C9B:8D38 (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a motor driving the chain. If it went from zero to max RPM instantly, the acceleration forces would break things. Jim1138 (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a chain hooked more-or-less directly to a very simple action driven at a reasonably slow speed. ~600 rpm is not extreme and is in the slow range of assault rifle cyclic rates; it is not a rotary, whose electric motor has to drive the entire multiple barrel assembly, all of the bolt groups, and the cams, and yet those drive up to full rate in a similar time frame to what was claimed here unsourced.
Also, watch the video. 2602:30A:2C5E:7760:2490:B00C:7C9B:8D38 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Single-barreled autocannons cannot 'spool', because they are not rotary multiple-barreled cannons. These things are not giant Miniguns or Vulcan guns. There is no such thing as "spool-up time" on an M230. It doesn't matter whether this is driven by an electric motor or not ; this doesn't change the fact that it's non-sensical for something that neither rotates nor has multiple barrels to have a "spool-up time". 2602 is correct. I've noticed an edit war on the matter and I think BilCat is not letting 2602 act in good faith. 176.154.184.23 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith applies to motives, not content. As Jim said, a motor doesn't generally go from zero to full speed instantly, whether the barrel rotates or not. Reliable sources would be helpful either way, which so far no one has provided. I've been unable to find a source for the existing claim, so I'll not contest it's removal at this time. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the motor has to do to operate the M230's action is to make it function at a rate of roughly 600 rounds per minute within 100 milliseconds. The claim isn't that it's instantaneous, the claim is simply that it's not only largely plausible mechanically, but the video linked above more or less demonstrates that it's essentially how it works. There is no spooling involved, this would be more equivalent to what's called the "lock time" on a conventional firearm ; the time between pressing a trigger and the firing pin striking the primer. 176.154.184.23 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While that sounds reasonable, why should I take your word for it? And what does a video of targets being shot prove? We get a lot of bullcrap artists who write nonsense, and expect others to just believe them because they say so. This is why Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the same, why should I take the article's word when it cites spooling-up? I personally don't because I know it's just incorrect, though I find it of concern that up until the last few months's edits, this was seemingly on the article for several years. With that said I don't disagree with you, every claim needs to be sourced, otherwise this website wouldn't be taken seriously. However, while I would like to be able to provide sources, some of the material I can think off the top of my head that would cite this sort of information are technical manuals and documentation that are distributed during armament systems training courses, which I unfortunately don't think is publicly available. If it is, I haven't found anything regarding the matter. Perhaps someone from ATK, or an Apache aircrew member with technical knowledge on the matter could help us better here. 176.154.184.23 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needed to be reliably sourced, the other IP was correct about that. However, I disagreed with it being removed on his say-so alone with no sources to back up his claim, without giving a chance for a source to be found first. It's had a couple of weeks now, so I'm not going to object to it's removal at this point. And my point wasn't to challenge your own knowledge, but to point out it's really not possible for a user here to prove their own personal knowledge, and to be honest they shouldn't have to. Requiring sources level the playing field in a sense. Yes, ww do end up with sources making claims that aren't true, but attributable errors are at least attributable. As to finding an Apache aircrew member, the other IP may well be one, but we still need reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M230 chain gun. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M230 Bushmaster chain gun name

[edit]

Dave1185 Documentation? According to the official the PDF it's called M230 Bushmaster Chain Gun. Oranjelo100 (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

The PDF clearly indicates that "M230LF 30mm BUSHMASTER® CHAIN GUN®" is one variant of the "M230 Chain Gun" family. Please don't move again until there is a clear consensus. - BilCat (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat M230LF is a variant of M230 but both of those autocannons are called Bushmaster. The family they are talking about are all those Oerlikon/Northop chain guns. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. The first Bushmaster was the M242 Bushmaster, a 25mm variant of the M230. Apparently, the name Bushmaster was carried over to the 30mm version for some variants, but I've never seen it applied officially to the Apache's version, which is the original model. I could be wrong, but you need reliable sources, not just passing mentions. - BilCat (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

part of the Australien Slinger weapon system

[edit]

It seems that the gun is part of the so called Slinger weapon system produced in Australien which will e.g. be delivered to Ukraine to fight against the Russian invader. Worth mentioning? MichaelK-osm (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M230_chain_gun&oldid=1208648199"