this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
440 points (97.8% liked)

Gaming

7399 readers
772 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.


2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.


I should not need to explain this one.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.


Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.



Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 3 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

How much could it possibly weigh?

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Ok now from memory a gm m134 minigun shoots around 6000 rounds per minute at full tilt, weighs between 19kg and 39kg not including the 24v battery to power the gun and a 7.62x51mm cartridge weighs approximately 25g each.

So ballpark. You're looking at about 20kg for the gun and battery alone minimum and to shoot for 1 straight minute you would be humping 150kg of ammo.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

In the famous scene in predator, they fired for 45s and the gun was tuned down from the typical minimum of 2000 rounds per minute to just over 1000 so that you could actually see the barrels spinning.

1000 / 60 = 16.667 rounds per second

45 seconds of shooting

750 rounds at 25.5 grams each = 19.125 kg

That's a lot more reasonable. In that scene at least, the guy fires every bullet available because he's so freaked out, so what Jesse Ventura's character was carrying was a 40kg gun with 20kg of ammo.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You arent wrong, maximum numbers vs minimum numbers.

Fact is though that by turning the gun down to 1000 rounds per minute you're only exceeding the m249 by 150 rpm and carrying a weapon at least 13kg heaver to do so. (Yes the 249 is chambered in 5.56 so its not apples and apples)

At the end of the day it COULD be done, its just not the tool for the job. Its enough weight that dude would effectively be stationary at which point you might as well pintle mount the damn thing, attatch a giant ammo can and turn it right the fuck up.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 56 minutes ago

I don't think the 1000 rounds per minute would make sense in any scenario other than a movie or video game. If you're going to the trouble of carrying all those extra barrels around, you want to be firing at a rate high enough that a single barrel would overheat. But, if you're firing at 2000+ rounds per minute, the recoil quickly becomes unmanageable for someone on foot.

Multiple barrels makes sense for a CIWS gun because you're shooting at something flying at you extremely fast so the time it's within the gun's maximum to minimum range is short. Similarly, it makes sense on a plane, like the A-10, because the plane is moving fairly quickly and it might not be able to aim at the target for very long. In both those scenarios you want as many bullets on the target in the short time window you have.

For a door gunner on a helicopter, I imagine the main goal is to suppress the enemy. Accuracy is less important than keeping their heads down. You want one man to be able to suppress possibly a platoon on the ground. The weight of the gun doesn't matter since the helicopter is carrying the weight, and the amount of ammo it uses isn't too important because the engagement will be pretty short (just enough time to get in and get out). So, a minigun makes sense because it can send a continuous stream of bullets into a general area for tens of seconds without running out of ammo or overheating.

I can't imagine a scenario where it makes sense for a soldier to be able to carry and fire a minigun while standing up. Maybe there's a scenario where it's a crew-served weapon that you carry and set up quickly. But, even then, surely 10 rounds per second is going to be enough, and all the extra barrels are just weight you don't need? The only time I can see them really being useful on the ground is defending an outpost of some kind. There have been scenarios like that where the engagement lasts so long that machine guns overheat. 1/6 of the heating and 1/6 of the wear and tear on each barrel might make the extra complexity, weight, and electrical requirements worth it.

[–] TheSeveralJourneysOfReemus@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That's 60kg of weapon with some recoil. Ouch.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Someone posted an excellent video of what the recoil is actually like. It fires the same rounds as an M14 rifle. So, per round, it has the same recoil force. Because the gun is a lot heavier the acceleration of the gun due to the recoil is smaller. But, the force per bullet (or the impulse) is the same. The greater number of bullets means that the total force is higher. But, it's smoother because of all the extra mass.

The end result is that an M14 slams into the shooter's shoulder, but the minigun is like a gridiron football player trying to shove the shooter backwards.

[–] Slovene@feddit.nl 2 points 18 hours ago

At least 1 gram. Maybe even 2.