Talk:General-purpose machine gun

Untitled

GPMG does not refer specifically to the MAG-58 / L7A1; it can refer to any machine gun that is designed to be able to fulfill the roles of either light machine gun or medium machine gun. Apart from the MAG-58 which fills that role in the British Army, other well known GPMG's include the M60, German MG3 (and once the famous MG42), and the Russian PKM. (However it is widely accpeted that the MAG 58 is the best GPMG ever made!)

- Yes, by the very soldiers that use the FN MAG ;)  Any soldier will love theirs best (unless its an early M60)

A full article should discuss the origin of the idea of the GPMG, its tactical role, and why many modern armies are moving away from it back to a LMG/SFMG doctrine. I might do it in a couple of weeks but I am flat out at the moment.

Concerning an article on the MAG-58, it should probably also mention the large number of countries who have adopted it. Also the cyclic rate is actually variable. -- Roger 13 Aug 2003

The absolute best should be the one that originated the concept. In other words, the MG42. 209.221.73.5 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The "hip firing" reference is rather 'Arnie' or 'Rambo', isn't it. For a more encyclopedic tone I suggest 'while on the move'. GraemeLeggett 16:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think hip firing is possible only with weapons up to light machine guns. After that it's simply unfeasible. Oberiko 20:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to request that an image be uploaded to this page. Actually I may do that myself now--131.111.8.103 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hip firing is something that is rarely ever employed except for when firing light machine guns or GPMGS on the move.

"Firing from the Hip" is both taught in several armies as well as a more correct description of the technique, since one doesnt have to be "on the move" to fire from the hip. Just because "Arnie" or "Rambo" fires from the hip, that should not influence technical language.

It seems inaccurate to describe the MK48 as a GPMG, as it is narrowly a .308 adaptation of the MK46, which is a Special Forces weapon therefore used as a small arm by an individual; as opposed to being crew-served and vehicle-mountable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.251.142 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Same as a Medium Machine Gun?

Isn't MMG pretty much synonymous with GPMG these days? If so, the pages should be merged. If not, notes should be added about how they're different.

My hunch is that GPMG is a British/Commonwealth term, and MMG is a USAian term, although i could be wrong.

-- Tom Anderson 2008-01-28 1819 +000

You have a good point but i dont think its right though. Any machine gun could really be a general purpose machine gun. That fact that most Medium machine guns are general purpose machine is just coincident. A light machine gun could be a gneral purpose machine gun also. BonesBrigade 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Anderson, I'm not sure where the term GPMG geographically originated, but I am American, and I am familiar with the term, specifically as it refers to a weapon that is designed to fulfill the roles of both an LMG and a MMG, such as the MG42 or M60.Cbmclean (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is co-incident that most weapons referred to as GPMGs are MMGs. Not all MMGs are GPMGs. The two major historical GPMG-style weapons are the MG38/42 and BAR, both with their own inherent differences in make and use. I doubt the BAR would ever be referred as an MMG. FWIW GPMG is from the french, but made popular by the British standardisation of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The term MMG was used by the UK, long before the USA. For example the Vickers MK I: i.e. a rifle calibre machine gun, designed to be used on a tripod in the sustained fire role and not on a bipod. In the past the USA had these terms: Large caliber machine gun equaled M2 Browning, heavy machine gun equaled Browning M1917, light machine gun equaled Browning M1919A4 and BAR equaled automatic rifle or machine rifle. A true light machine gun could however in my opinion, not be categorised as a GPMG. In my opinion a true GPMG needs the following: 1. Full calibre, full energy rifle rounds; like the 7.62mmx51mm and 7.62mmx54mmR. 2. Be belt fed. 3. Be capable of being used both on a bipod in the light role and on a tripod or on/in vehicles, helicopters etc in the sustained fire role. Furthermore, it being possible to rapidly change from bipod use to tripod use and vice versa. 4. Have a quick-change barrel. The Bren's service with the UK armed forces overlapped with that of the L7 GPMG and the Bren was always referred to as a LMG. In my opinion a Bren could not be described as a GPMG, because it is magazine fed and therefore could not provide the volume of fire and uninterrupted fire necessary for the sustained fire role on a tripod or on/in vehicles. In the case of small calibre MG's like the 5.56mm Minimi, because their calibre is unsuitable for the long distance fire required for the sustained fire role on a tripod or on/in vehicles. Therefore Bren and 5.56mm Minimi type machine guns, are usually not referred to as GPMG's. In my opinion, true medium machine guns are for example the Goryunnov SG-43/SGM, Browning M1919A4 and Vickers MK I. A rifle calibre machine gun (i.e for example 7.62mmx54mmR, .303in) designed for use on a tripod or on/in vehicles in the sustained fire role and cannot be used on a bipod. The BAR could never be categorised as a GPMG. It is magazine fed, lacks a quick-change barrel and could not be used on a tripod. Sulasgeir (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Russian term for GPMG this is единый, meaning unified or universal. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

FN-MAG in Canadian Service

Article says "In the late 1956, the Canadian military adopted the FN MAG as the C6A1 GPMG along with the purchase of the FNC1 and FNC2's". The Canadians were still using the Browning M1919A4 as late as the mid 1980's. When the Leopard C1 tanks came into service I believe they came with the FN-MAG designated as the C6. The FN-MAG replaced the Browning about the time the FNs were retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibm1130 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Problematic to have the M1919 Browning as a "notable example"

I don't think that the M1919 Browning machine gun fits well with the other "notable examples". While the M1919A6 version could be used as a light machine gun (LMG), it was a much later conversion, and in all other aspects the M1919 is a 'pure' medium machine gun (MMG). The Wiki article on the M1919 describes the A6 as a "stopgap measure" by the US Army in response to the "German MG34 and MG42 machine guns they were facing". Contrast this with all of the other weapons on the list which were specifically designed to be used both as LMGs and MMGs. As a minimum the inclusion of the M1919 should contain a qualifier. Otherwise we might also include the MG 08/18 version of the Maxim MG 08 as a "notable example".

Mojowiha (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Including the M1919 will only tend to confuse the reader. Indeed, the M1919 could just as easily be at the top of a list of examples of machine guns that are NOT GPMGs. The appearance of the M1919A6, a belated attempt to GMPG-ize the M1919 notwithstanding, it is hard to think of a .30 cal post-WWI belt-fed machine gun that is less like a GPMG than the M1919. It should be taken off the "notable example" list or, at the dead minimum, the M1919A6 model should be the only variant listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.156.83 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General-purpose machine gun. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130226162750/http://army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1463.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1463.aspx

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

POV and Focus on German WWII GPMGs

Is it wise to focus almost solely on german WWII GPMGs as the main and pretty much only GPMGs during the war? It seems (to me at least) that this gives undue weight to the Nazis, and presents them almost as a Wunderwaffe akin to how the StG 44 was the first successful assault rifle, but not solely the basis for every subsequent assault rifle. ShamblingShoggoth (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)