Talk:FN MAG

C6A1 FLEX was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 November 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into FN MAG. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Belgium

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]

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)

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

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).

"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]

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]

• any chance of a photo?

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

Plz help me to stop the interwiki of zh:T-74排用機槍 , the T-74 only a ROC(Taiwan) variants .-

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]

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

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

]

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]

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]

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]

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

• FN in Belguim
• RSAF and Manroy in Britain
• FNMI and Colt in the US (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d321b1b0988c8142b1c2feffd3f7e7a&tab=core&_cview=0)
• H&K in Germany (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/10/21/hk-redesigned-l7a2-and-the-me-redesigned-7-62-gpmg/)
• FFV in Sweden
• DGFM in Argentina
• China?
• India: government arsenal
• Pindad in Indonesia
• ST Engineering in Singapore
• Mexico: government arsenal

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016060326/http://manroy.co.uk:80/manroy/GPMG.HTML to http://www.manroy.co.uk/manroy/GPMG.HTML
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012141221/http://www.defence.gov.au:80/army/MAG58.asp to http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/MAG58.asp

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.

• 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.—

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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5l7wscAut?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astynomia.gr%2Fimages%2Fstories%2FDOCS%2FAttachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf to http://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/DOCS/Attachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822145526/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226162750/http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1463.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1463.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705100331/http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/issueareas/producers/Producers_pdf/2007_Production.pdf to http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/issueareas/producers/Producers_pdf/2007_Production.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209002916/http://www.ipisresearch.be/download.php?id=68 to http://www.ipisresearch.be/download.php?id=68
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66QZHY9Ov?url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p%3Bquery%3DId%3A%22chamber/hansardr/2005-06-14/0136%22 to http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p%3Bquery%3DId%3A%22chamber/hansardr/2005-06-14/0136%22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610130326/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=91 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=91
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasr.ca%2F101-army-smallarm-2.htm&date=2011-02-07 to http://casr.ca/101-army-smallarm-2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080813094157/http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/weapons/inf/gpmg/gpmg.htm to http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/weapons/inf/gpmg/gpmg.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mod.gov.lv/upload/nbsfakti.anglu.gala.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66QZJ9AUc?url=http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/weapons/machine-guns.htm to http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/weapons/machine-guns.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228065709/http://mil.se/sv/Materiel-och-teknik/Vapen/Medeltung-kulspruta-58 to http://www.mil.se/sv/Materiel-och-teknik/Vapen/Medeltung-kulspruta-58/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160922194230/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/information-och-fakta/materiel-och-teknik/vapen/kulspruta-58-b/ to http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/information-och-fakta/materiel-och-teknik/vapen/kulspruta-58-b/

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.

• 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]