this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
461 points (97.9% liked)
Gaming
7405 readers
835 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
M240 weighs like 12 or 13kg and fires 7.62.
Plus, it would've totally been common in service at the time of the movie's release...
It's just not as cool though.
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.
Exactly. Just because it conceivably could be done doesnt make it a good idea.I mean... they do look fucking cool when they crank off at 6000rpm though. The rule of cool makes everything a good idea in movies.
Its not the greatest movie but I do love the boat rescue scene from Act of Valor https://youtu.be/O0vZY0m6INU
Yeah, rule of cool is important for entertainment. The problem is that you stretch reality too far you end up ruining the suspension of disbelief. For me, people flying backwards through the air after they've been shot ruins movies, because that's just not what happens.
IMO, the best part of the scene from Predator is that they showed just how freaked out the guy was by having him hold down the trigger after he'd fired every bullet he had leaving the audience with just the sound of the barrels spinning. That's just really good storytelling, and not something you can do with another type of machine gun.
That's 60kg of weapon with some recoil. Ouch.
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.