Jump to content

Talk:FN MAG

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

Buttstock Question

[edit]

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)[reply]

Stub?

[edit]

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

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)

table

[edit]

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

Operators

[edit]

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).

M240 joined 2 this artical

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed old discussion as Inconclusive. There was a redundant diuscussion at Talk:M240 machine gun/Archive 1#Merge into FN MAG, and that discussion is continuing. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Design

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Initials

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For god's sake: It's 'Mitrailleuse à Gaz" (Gas operated Machine-Gun, opposed to 'Blow-Back' which is the working-mechanism of most other Machine-Guns). ANY Belgian can tell you that(Certainly if, like I, he used one during his military service in Belgium). So I changed it back to its correct meaning. 81.245.170.60 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have a discrepancy somewhere because most sources state that the G is an abbreviation for Generale and not Gaz. Koalorka (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake, I even owned one (Though demilitarised and had to hand it in in 2007 due to severe restrictions in Belgian gun-laws). Ive known it to be called 'Mitrailleuse à Gaz' since 1982 (The year I used one during my military service in Belgium). But if you don't believe ME, then just have a look at the French section (If you can read it, that is)! Some of you are seriously 'Off their Rockers', even calling me a 'Vandal' just BECAUSE I MAKE AN EDIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.170.60 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]
  • any chance of a photo?

"Gimpy"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

interwiki of zh:T-74排用機槍

[edit]

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)[reply]

Duplicate M240 information

[edit]

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)[reply]

I second this, the five paragraphs of M240 information under "Variants" is redundant and would be better served with a link to the 240 article. Considering doing it myself but don't like deletion so... Corella (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

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

Meaning of the word MAG

[edit]

O.K. Yes, it's me again: MAG (Also, PLEASE, see the French article) means: "Mitrailleuse à Gaz".

Three editors reverted my contribution? Yes, but ALL three based on the same reference!

Now, here's a reference that says I'm right (For God's sake: The whole of Belgium knows it's "Mitrailleuse à Gaz", and that's what they told me in the army too), I just don't know how to put the reference in the article!

http://www.air-defense.net/index.php?index=20&num_art=201

Am I now allowed to make a contribution without being called a vandal? 81.245.169.130 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's an aircraft site first and you've been BANNED![1] This is a sock puppet edit. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not banned, he's blocked. For 12 hours. And the block was based on your claim he's a vandal, which he doesn't seem to be. Could you please, please just talk to him? --barneca (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KSP58 redirect

[edit]

"KSP58" presently redirects here, as the Swedish military designation of this weapon. It can also refer to Conspiracy 58, however, which means that the standard hatnote {{redirect}} for redirect targets should be used, so that anyone who types in "KSP58" looking for the mockumentary is informed about why he's ended up here and where he should go. However, this hatnote is constantly getting removed from this article (last time today). Does this mean that you would want KSP58 deleted altogether? Of course, probably only Swedes will type it in (for either meaning), but I still think it's important enough to exist. Or does it mean that you would prefer KSP58 to be a disambiguation page instead? I think the weapon meaning is much more important than the mockumentary meaning, so it should redirect here (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), but then the hatnote is needed (per WP:DLINKS). I'm struggling to understand what solution the removers of the hatnote are implicitly proposing. —JAO • T • C 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'll have to say that the other one is a pretty weak article. I'd have to argue against a disambig page because this is the English Language wiki. I find it really difficult to believe that English-language searchers would be typing in KSP58 and have their searches frustrated by the lack of a hatnote. I don't think either a hatnote or disambig is appropriate on English Wikipedia. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unwarranted advertising for a poorly developed and entirely irrelevant article that practically no English speaker is familiar with under its Swedish translation. Koalorka (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant? Yes, indeed, that's the point of hatnotes (had it been relevant, it could have been treated in the article). Also, the purpose of these links is not to generate traffic (and I have no personal interest in doing so), and avoiding incoming links has never been Wikipedia's way of dealing with poorly developed articles. But as I said, I certainly agree that if there are to be exceptions to the redirect-hatnote guideline, then this would probably qualify. It's just that I always interpreted the guideline as not allowing such exceptions, but I guess it's possible that I'm simply using a too strict interpretation and at any rate, it's definitely not worth putting up a fight about. —JAO • T • C 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you don't have a personal interest in the article, but you do seem to have a skewed view of its importance. If it were a direct link to a direct article, then great. But we're talking about a redirect from the Swedish translation of a nickname for an obscure television show? I'm not entirely sure you're looking at this from an objective point of view. What is the gain from putting a hatnote at the top of the article? The traffic stats on the MAG article show 25K hits while the same stats for your article show 750... not thousand. Your stats jumped 50% when you put the hatnote here... but that's not saying much. I'd be willing to bet that a long-term hatnote would double or tripple the stats for your article. Hatnotes are not meant to be advertising for articles, they are meant to be disambig statements for what one would reasonably assume somebody would be looking for. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not a translation (how do you translate something that's in Swedish into Swedish?). Second, it's not in any way "my" article, I did not create it and I am not sure if I have edited it at all. Third, I must say I am a bit insulted by the 3RR warning you gave me, considering that I have never edited this article more than once in any given month, and especially considering that you posted it an hour after my statement that I would not fight over this and readd the hatnote. Can't you just accept that I have conceded? —JAO • T • C 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: KSP58 is a sweedish abreviation. The English abreviation would be "CSP58" or "C58". You're REALLY out in left field on this one. I use the term "your" in place of the actual article name as it's so obscure, I don't feel the need to memorize the name. The 3RR warning was entered in error. I apologize for any children that might have suffered as a result of your diminished mood resulting from the erroneuous warning. I looked at your edit history and mistook your sincere edits to the talk page as continual edits of the aritcle. To be sure, you stated that the hatnote was constantly being removed from this article. I took a logical leap between the edit summaries and the fact that you were bemoaning the fact that the hatnote "kept" getting removed... my bad. I failed. I will be more diligent in the future. My bad. Still doesn't change the fact that a hatnote is inappropriate in this article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, apology accepted, sarcasm cheerfully ignored (plus I do see how my words could give the impression of an actual edit war going on). And as I have said (and now say for the third time), I won't readd the hatnote, so don't worry. (And yes, KSP58 is a Swedish abbreviation. Do you think that everything that's ever written in Swedish is translated from another language? "Conspiracy 58" is the translation, not the other way around.) —JAO • T • C 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long paragraphs in the Users list section

[edit]

The Users list is meant be to just a list. Paragraphs of detailed information should be incorporated into the "body text" sections. The UK entry in the list is particularly long even though there already is an entire subsection for British versions. Any information in the Users section that is not already included in the British versions section can be moved there and the rest discarded as unnecessary duplication. Other long explanations appended to entries in the Users list can similarly be moved to relevant text sections. Only very brief notes/remarks that really cannot fit in elsewhere should be allowed to stay in the Users list. Roger (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support. Feel free to be bold and make changes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started off the process with a simple cut and paste of the UK text. Please help to clean up any duplication of information or inconsistensies between the two bodies of text and integrate them into a coherent section. Roger (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Armed Forces

[edit]

The source in question does indeed say Norway is a user of the FN MAG. The text would not read logically with any other interpretation.

Quote: The contract includes the manufacture and delivery of 1,900 MINIMI™ 5.56 machine guns together with spare parts and accessories up to the end of 2012. The contract also includes optional quantities and additional services to be provided by FN Herstal to the NDLO over a 15-year period.

The MINIMI™ 5.56 light machine gun is the newest addition in line with the FN MAG™ medium machine gun and the FN M2HB-QCB heavy machine gun already in use by the Norwegian army.

To paraphrase that: "A number of FN Minimi machine guns were just purchased. The Minimi is the newest weapon to join the MAG and the M2HB in use with the Norwegian army." In fact, a comment on the press release at an alternate source even affirms this interpretation:

Quote: Since I’m Norwegian Army, I thought I’d clear a few things up. Subase: The Ultimax may be the better choice, but it wasn’t submitted for the trails. IIRC there were only two candidates, The FN MINIMI PARA and the HK MG4. As for 7.62 GPMG’s in use by us Vikings, The Rheinmetal MG3 and the FN MAG will remain in service. The MG3 has been the workhorse of the infantry since the late 50′s. ROG5728 (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of manufacturers

[edit]

Infobox says FN, article mentions several others in passing, scattered among the various sections. Could use a separate listing:

Sure there are more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.221.121 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on FN MAG. 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 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FN MAG. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on FN MAG. 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) 04:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation for MAG

[edit]

I'd like to point out that the source used for the meaning "Mitrailleuse d'Appui Général" states first that the abbreviation means "Mitrailleuse À Gaz". There was apparently an editing war about that 10 years ago, I think it would be best to at least give the two meanings. 194.78.163.162 (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HK121

[edit]

It says that the HK121 (aka MG-5) is "a derivative" (assumably of the FN MAG). However it does not bear any similarity apart from obvious things like same caliber and being gas operated, open bolt. But that is basically it, as far as I know. I'm no gun nut however, so maybe someone with a bit deeper knowledge can correct the link.--91.41.37.38 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers produced

[edit]

I edited the article, because the previous version stated that over 1 million of these machine guns had been produced, but referred to a link which leads to an archived site from FN Herstal, and there it says:

FN Herstal is the original designer and manufacturer of the FN MAG® general purpose machine gun. With 200,000 units manufactured and adopted by over 90 countries around the globe (all climate types), the FN MAG® machine gun is the unbeatable worldwide reference in its category in terms of accuracy and reliability.

The french wikipedia-article states:

With more than 150 000 MAG, L7 and other M240 produced, the Belgian machine gun has been used in many conflicts around the world and history including the Congolese Crisis (1960-1967), the Bush War in Southern Rhodesia (1965-1979), the War on the South African Border (1966-1990) the Six Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War (1973) or the Border War between Cambodia and Thailand (2008); the French army used it in the Central African Republic ( Operation Sangaris ) and then in Mali ( Operation Serval and then Operation Barkhane ) in the years 2010. The North-Irish Conflict (1969-1998), the Falklands War (1982) or the Operation Barras (during the Sierra Leonean Civil War in 2000) saw the use of L7s

So, where does the 1 million+ come from, which btw. is an extremly unrealistic number. You might get to 1 million if you include all copies (especially the chinese) and every alleged "derivative" (what that is should be defined as well, I don't think the HK121 is a derivative). But FN gives the number of 200.000+, and there is no source for the number of copies and derivatives.

2003:D1:B708:BA01:3DA9:52E4:FE9B:372D (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. You can see here that 1 year ago someone added "1 million produced" without providing a new source.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Iranian assassination

[edit]

Hey peeps I think it's worth adding a small section about the use of this gun as a remote-control weapon. I've added a sentence to the intro but not sure about where to add the details, I don't know much about guns. I've quoted the original source which is the NY Times; you can also read the details in this article which isn't behind a paywall. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-fakhrizadeh-assassination-israel.html Very interesting! Good job on a great page, team Sholto.mac (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel

[edit]

Is the barrel really not straight as shown in

?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

As it has been many years since it was last brought up. I propose the page on the m240 be merged with this, there is no special reason as to why the m240 needs a dedicated page, it is based upon the FN MAG. There is already a long standing precedent of folding other nations variants into this page, I see little reason as to why the US variants should be treated as a special case when it is the same weapon. RLS 84 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ksp 58 machine gun which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FN_MAG&oldid=1207255834"