Gatling Guns
- Thread starter TEC9
- Start date
I believe the one used in the movies is the GE XM214 Microgun in 5.56 Nato. A six barrel gun, it's appropriately nicknamed the, "Six-Pax". The Six-Pax has been mounted on vehicles, aircraft and riverine boats (I had a friend who actually used one and it quiets ambushes muy pronto).
Per George Chinn (Vol 5, The Machine Gun), the basic gun weights 25.5 lbs, drive motor 7.5 lbs, feeder 3 lbs. When loaded with 1,000 rounds of .223, it weighs 85 lbs. It is 27 inches long and has a variable feed rate of fixed rates of fire from 400 to 10,000 SPM (1000, 6,000, 10,000 spm are available). It requires .75 HP for 2000 spm (shots per minute), 1.5 HP at 6K spm, and 3.2 HP at 10k spm. Barrel life is 100K rounds.
Every American should have one.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Per George Chinn (Vol 5, The Machine Gun), the basic gun weights 25.5 lbs, drive motor 7.5 lbs, feeder 3 lbs. When loaded with 1,000 rounds of .223, it weighs 85 lbs. It is 27 inches long and has a variable feed rate of fixed rates of fire from 400 to 10,000 SPM (1000, 6,000, 10,000 spm are available). It requires .75 HP for 2000 spm (shots per minute), 1.5 HP at 6K spm, and 3.2 HP at 10k spm. Barrel life is 100K rounds.
Every American should have one.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
David Hineline
New member
Jessie's .223 mini-gun is actually for sale to qualified individuals. Comes with back pack battery set up. One set of blanked barrels one set of live barrels.
Dan Shea has this weapon for sale $125,000
Also has Rambo's M-60
Dan Shea has this weapon for sale $125,000
Also has Rambo's M-60
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Yep, hardball - the Native American warriors
would have had 8 Gatling guns to play with.
would have had 8 Gatling guns to play with.
Hi, guys,
Poor old George Armstrong Custer has taken a lot of heat on the Gatling business, but I wonder how many of the critics have 1) seen a Gatling of the period and 2) seen the type of terrain involved.
Gatlings were fairly effective in defense or against massed troops, but not against single targets or a spread out enemy. They were just too awkward to be used to engage individual targets. Also, there was no such thing as firing while moving with a Gatling; the gunners had to stop, unhitch the team, unlimber the gun, get the magazines out of the ready boxes, insert the magazines, etc. When you read about those Gatlings, don't think M60, think 10-pounder Parrott; you will have the right idea for size and use.
Jim
P.S. Forget the movies - many of their "Gatlings" are fakes and the script writer decides how many enemies drop "dead".
JEK
Poor old George Armstrong Custer has taken a lot of heat on the Gatling business, but I wonder how many of the critics have 1) seen a Gatling of the period and 2) seen the type of terrain involved.
Gatlings were fairly effective in defense or against massed troops, but not against single targets or a spread out enemy. They were just too awkward to be used to engage individual targets. Also, there was no such thing as firing while moving with a Gatling; the gunners had to stop, unhitch the team, unlimber the gun, get the magazines out of the ready boxes, insert the magazines, etc. When you read about those Gatlings, don't think M60, think 10-pounder Parrott; you will have the right idea for size and use.
Jim
P.S. Forget the movies - many of their "Gatlings" are fakes and the script writer decides how many enemies drop "dead".
JEK
Having seen the traverse mechanism on Gatlings, I can see why they did not become popular for direct support.
OTOH, the Boers did have a neat device called a "pom-pom"....a 37mm Maxim machine gun! That puppy would outrange most anything the Brits could being up in a hurry and was quite effective on flat terrain (fairly flat trajectory). Anyone knows anything about those?
BTW, which laws make hopper feeders for mechanical Gatlings illegal?
OTOH, the Boers did have a neat device called a "pom-pom"....a 37mm Maxim machine gun! That puppy would outrange most anything the Brits could being up in a hurry and was quite effective on flat terrain (fairly flat trajectory). Anyone knows anything about those?
BTW, which laws make hopper feeders for mechanical Gatlings illegal?
You Jim, are correct the gatlings and just about every weapon of its ilk were used more like artillery than machine guns of today. But I am not sure of standard tactical missions such as DS, R, GS and GSR would have applied since the weapons were organic to the manuever (supported) unit and not part of another organization providing support.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I was reading the latest Small Arms Review
in Barnes and Noble and they have an ad for
the Jesse/Ah-Nuld minigun. Think I will have to wait for Y3K and my cyborg body before
I snatch it up. Also, the price was a touch out of my ball park.
Gun List or SGN just out had an article on Custer and the firearms. His opinion was that it was debateable if the Gatlings would have helped. Said the black powder fouling made them prone to jamming among other problems.
in Barnes and Noble and they have an ad for
the Jesse/Ah-Nuld minigun. Think I will have to wait for Y3K and my cyborg body before
I snatch it up. Also, the price was a touch out of my ball park.
Gun List or SGN just out had an article on Custer and the firearms. His opinion was that it was debateable if the Gatlings would have helped. Said the black powder fouling made them prone to jamming among other problems.
Hi, STLRN,
That was the problem. The guns were the size and nearly the weight of cannon, but were assigned to maneuver units. Too short range for the support role and too big for maneuver, they were not successful in either and essentially were failures in the West.
Now, as part of a fortress defense against a conventional army, they would have been effective. As part of a cavalry unit fighting Indians, they were about useless, something that GAC recognized.
Jim
That was the problem. The guns were the size and nearly the weight of cannon, but were assigned to maneuver units. Too short range for the support role and too big for maneuver, they were not successful in either and essentially were failures in the West.
Now, as part of a fortress defense against a conventional army, they would have been effective. As part of a cavalry unit fighting Indians, they were about useless, something that GAC recognized.
Jim
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The 45-70 was a big round generating a big gun. I wonder why no one considered a smaller
little guy in 45 Colt or Schofeld? It would
have been the SMG or M-60 of its time.
It might have been more portable.
little guy in 45 Colt or Schofeld? It would
have been the SMG or M-60 of its time.
It might have been more portable.
There is an advertisement in home shop machinist magazine for the plans to build your own miniature 22 caliber gatling gun. I've been meaning to send for them. Sounds pretty cool to me. But where would you be able to play with it? I don't own a big piece of property..... yet. I suppose I could mount on the balcony of my condo for a good defensive weapon against pesty complaining neighbors. 
Anyway, if anyone is intersted let me know and I'll dig it out.
Anyway, if anyone is intersted let me know and I'll dig it out.
Squirrel_Bait
New member
Another problem with Big Horny Custer's gatling guns (and rifles) was the ammo. The shells of the cartridges were made from coils instead of tubing because it was cheaper to do so. As a result, the case heads were often ripped off during extraction. That is why they found so many broken knives at the last stand from soldiers trying to remove broken shells from their weapons.
Hi, Squirrel Bait,
In that time period, ammunition makers had not yet learned how to draw solid head brass cartridges, and that meant some troubles for combat troops.
The U.S. never used the type of wrapped cartridges you are thinking of, although the British did in their Martinis (the guns - they used olives in the other Martinis). The original Boxer cartridges were of the coil type.
The U.S. cartridges were drawn copper, like a big .22 rimfire, but with an inside primer added (there were several different types). Copper won't contract after expanding like brass does, and the empties stuck in the chambers, with the extractor tearing through the thin copper rims. Depending on which book you read, the problem was either common or very rare.
Jim
In that time period, ammunition makers had not yet learned how to draw solid head brass cartridges, and that meant some troubles for combat troops.
The U.S. never used the type of wrapped cartridges you are thinking of, although the British did in their Martinis (the guns - they used olives in the other Martinis). The original Boxer cartridges were of the coil type.
The U.S. cartridges were drawn copper, like a big .22 rimfire, but with an inside primer added (there were several different types). Copper won't contract after expanding like brass does, and the empties stuck in the chambers, with the extractor tearing through the thin copper rims. Depending on which book you read, the problem was either common or very rare.
Jim
Squirrel_Bait
New member
Dang! Somebody lied to me! Thanks Jim for the correction.
