I dunno, the M134 is externally powered...what if you crashed and needed to fight off insurgents before rescue? There`s no question that the M134 can hit more in less time but it`s kind of a waste of ammo, not to mention your target getting obscured by the dust getting kicked up. I guess it all comes down to application...
It might seem like the minigun wins, but keep in mind the possible advantages. The m240 consumes less ammo at the risk of missing the target (which doesn't really matter anyway; the thing can hit its target at about 1.3 hits per second anyway) they both use the same cartridge as well. Also, what's the point of shooting a guy 100+ times when the target would be KIA in like 3 shots? I'm sticking with the m240.
I have used an m240 in combat...who ever was firing that in this demonstration wasn't trying very hard....the m240 can perform much better than that....plus its compared with a gatling gun??? This is comparing apples to oranges..... this is just dillon trying to get buyers
@azaznator In a firefight? A 66lb gun with (if you were to have 3,500 rounds of 7.62x51) 74lb in ammo? That's 140lbs of equipment. Good luck carrying that for more than 10 minutes in a firefight. I can carry 140lb, sure, but that's not practical.
@fromstart2finish 66lbs. Yes, a person can carry it but no human can PRACTICALLY hold it and fire it. The recoil is very strong if it's not mounted on a car or helicopter.
She weighs about 30 kilograms and fires probably 2 dollar 7.62×51mm NATO rounds at 3000 rounds per minute... It costs 1'200 dollars to fire this weapon for 12 secondsss.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!
These idiots that make these outrageous dollar amount claims think they are convincing people how bad the military is for having them. What they just don't get is people are better informed than that and their claims are easily debunked. They also don't seem to get it makes them look like FOOLS and TOOLS.
A high-powered bolt-action rifle would be more likely to hit than both weapons but wouldn't be a good choice for suppression fire from a helicopter on a ground target.
They're both good, but here's a little problem: the M-134 can't be toted aound easily(or at all for that matter), and it needs an electrical power supply to operate. The M-240 doesn't need a power supply to operate, and you can carry it around easier.
obviously the m134 is much more effective at suppressing a target then the m240 due to the fact that it has more stopping power, fires at much higher rps, and has less kick. Its just a much deadlier weapon.
for the role of a door gunner the m134d mini gun is better in the fact that it has a high rate of fire. this is proved in vietnam when the m60 with 550 rounds per minute was the primary door gunner weapon, they switched to many configurations of multiple m60's per chopper because the fire rate wasn't good enough for surpresion of the vc troops. so an m134d is better but you cant carry one like you could an m240, m60, or m249.
i agree comparison is not total valuable, but both are great weapons in their own situations. you wouldn't carry an m134 around in urban and/or jungle combat (unless you're in the movie predator), but from a helicoptor M134 owns. wonder if cost of bullets and weapon is a factor?
@quangluu96 Actually no. Helicopters carry 6000 rounds. The M134 shoots at a rate of 3000 rounds a minute, or 50 bullets a second. this means you have 2 minutes of consecutive firing. And since you shoot in 3-5 second shots you have alot of time on your hands. These are usually only used for big targets like LAV's or large groups of men. Sp to be more accurate, you run out of ammo about the time you hit 900 or more men. :)
Not that comparable of weapons... the 240 is used on the ground as much as it is mounted. Hell I have cleared buildings with a M240B, try that with a mini gun.
Most of these comments miss the point. First, most rounds fired (other than from a sniper) are suppression. Neither of these weapons are likely to be used in full 10 round bursts, and targets are unlikely to stay in the open. The point of the video is that given X seconds of fire against a target that is exposed for X seconds the M134 is more likely to score a hit, and if it doesn't the target area will be well suppressed.
The M240 is only 650-900 round/min and the M134 is up to 6000. So it seems like they were trying to show accuracy in terms of hits on target, yet they made no mention of rounds expended! This is a bad comparison. The M134 would probably still win an accuracy test for sustained automatic fire like that since it's heavier and thus has less felt recoil, and doesn't fire from an open bolt, but at least that would be a more comparable measurement.
True Free energy devices exist,But the coverup is very strong,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
M134 is great for airborne or for suppressive and saturated fire where the shooter can't take his time to aim, along with vehicle movement.
However the M240 is what I would carry as a ground soldier. You can deploy in LMG mode or HMG for longer range suppressive fire. You can even use it as a rifle if you can squeeze of one round at a time. However, it is used in short bursts that makes it effective.
Mount it on a tripod, along with a good MG crew. You'll make a good defensive posture.
@dishwasherman83 yup you are right. like i said they are comparing two different types of weapons used in different combat roles. like comparing a sniper rifle and an assault rifle in a close quarter combat environment. obviously the assault rifle will outperform.
The M134 is meant to be a door gun for suppressing fire. When you've got a squad of Marines/Soldiers pinned down, the M134 is a much faster solution to their immediate problem. More rounds per second equals faster recovery of those pinned down Marines/Soldiers, so that they can do their job.
Like the old saying goes: "Ammo is cheap, Life is expensive." There is no 5 second respawn in combat. When you're dead, someone is writing your mother a letter. I'll take the M134 for support any day.
You're right you are a loser and need to get a life. The only thing you're right about is extended bursts of 240. But there are 2 reasons for that. 240 need to maintain accuracy and it will over heat. If you were paying attention it said these weapon system can withstand longer bursts and have more concentrated shot group. Don't pretend to be subject matter expert cause of a video game. That's just pathetic
I know this cause I'm level 50 prestige 10 in CoD.
You're right you are a loser and need to get a life. The only thing you're right about is extended bursts of 240. But there are 2 reasons for that. 240 need to maintain accuracy and it will over heat. If you were paying attention it said these weapon system can withstand longer bursts and have more concentrated shot group. Don't pretend to be subject matter expert cause of a video game. That's just pathetic
this vid is garbage. first off, any weapon is based off shooter experience. personally, the m240 is deadly accurate and u dont shoot it with a large burst like that. u shot 5-9 rounds at a time. the shooter just threw those rounds down range. obviously the m134 will hit the target more times if its also shot at a blind burst since it can lay rounds down range must faster and with greater impact leaving a larger blast radius. dumb video
I know this cause I'm level 50 prestige 10 in CoD.
She weighs 150 kilograms and fires custom 200 dollar custom tube cartridges at 10,000 rounds per minute. It costs 400,000 dollars to fire this weapon for 12 seconds.
@the4armedmonk Are you on crack!? $400,000 dollars for 12 SECONDS. Are you kidding me, where on earth did you read that from!? More like $600 per minute.
@the4armedmonk I doesn't cost that much to fire the M134 for 12 seconds. Anyone who thought you're right isn't thinking critically. The M134 fires at about 4000 rounds per minute. So in 12 seconds, it will fire 4000 / 5 or about 800 rounds. According to you, each bullet costs 5000 dollars. The M134 fires the 7.62 x 51mm round. I can buy those at a store for 1 dollar each. 800 DOLLARS FOR 12 SECONDS is a more appropriate guess.
i would have the m132, just because you put more bullets in the target, in less time... dont relly think u will 4-10 burst in a battle sitiuation, probably just spray and pray...
it isnt about killing the enemy. You spray, 2 or 3 go down wounded or killed, the rest hits the ground surpressed, looks up, stops shooting at bluforce.
The point of this video, for anyone who doesn't get it, is that if you are moving quickly and have a small amount of time to shoot at a target the M134 is much better. The price of ammo is tiny, considering your flying a helicopter around for probably thousands of dollars an hour. Might as well fuck up what you shoot at...
i dont understand why everyone is bitching. i mean jesus who cares if its more expensive to use the M134 and it wastes alot of bullets. think about it, a single javelin missle is 45K. price of a single F22 raptor, 220Million (close to that) frankly i dont think the U.S. government gives a flying fuck how much it costs. the only thing that matters is shock and awe (and penis size). and what better way to display shock and awe (and penis size)? spend as much money on the biggest guns possible.
@Church1127 but this is a completely pointless video. its sorta like comparing an A-10 Warhawk to a Lockheed F-117 NightHawk. ones meant to destroy anything no matter the cost as well as have immense shock and awe. while the other is meant to be more surgical and precise.
@Church1127 The M240 was known as one of the best helicopter turrets for a long time. The video is only showing the progressive advancement from the M240 to the obviously better M134. These people aren't randomly choosing some gun & saying look at the difference.
Anybody who does the math says the M240 is better. Heres a new question. Which would be more likely to make you run like hell? 1500 rounds in 10 seconds or 150? I would rather get shot at by an M240, but thats just me. Good luck surviving 1500 rounds in 10 seconds :)
this vid is garbage. first off, any weapon is based off shooter experience. personally, the m240 is deadly accurate and u dont shoot it with a large burst like that. u shot 5-9 rounds at a time. the shooter just threw those rounds down range. obviously the m134 will hit the target more times if its also shot at a blind burst since it can lay rounds down range must faster and with greater impact leaving a larger blast radius. dumb video
@coraliscopuselaborat Actually the mounted machine guns on choppers are not designed to provide accurate fire support. A moving chopper is not the best platform for that. It is a matter of providing suppressing fire. Even if the bullets do not all go "into the target", the tactic is to suppress the enemy forces. With both a barrage of bullets and pyschological aspect on enemies. The main task of the onboard MGs is to provide fire support during the insertion/extraction. Not pure CAS missions.
@muskabulldog The M240 and the M249 are completely different weapons.. I'm not sure where you got your info, but Call of Duty is the worst place to get your gun information.
The fact of the matter is if you are firing from a chopper generally you are not shooting at a single target and in that case you want Area and spread for large groups, and for that M240 does a fine job but if you need accuracy you want the M134D
@coraliscopuselaborat i agree with all except it is a cool video because, its showing the beaten zone of the two guns and it shows that the mini gun has a much tighter cone of fire. as a 240 gunner i say i could put a tighter shot group down range than the guy in this vid but i couldnt touch what that mini did.
@coraliscopuselaborat The point of it was not to say the M134 is more accurate than the M240, merely to show how the M134 is more effective as an area suppression weapon than the M240. It's only a dumb video if you look at from a dumb perspective :)
@coraliscopuselaborat Doesnt matter. The M134 Is has a 9-1 Hit ratio compared to the M240. even if shot in bursts no matter what the M134 still is more accurate and its impossible to shoot 5-9 rounds at a time because the M134 shoots at a rate of 3000 rounds a minute, or 50 rounds a second. this weapon is ment for londs 3-5 second bursts, meaning about 150-250 rounds at a target. This makes it so that u dont need much experiance. douche bag get ur facts.
This guy has never f---in held a m240 or M134d also I would rather unjam a m240 and carry a it than a M134D. He never mentions how much ammo the gunner wastes on the 10 sec burst by the M134 that is a lot of wasted ammo you hit a target once it will go down. That over kill in ammo gets f--in heavy also. M240 gets the job done the M134 is retarded over kill
@adamyandell You stick to your M240 when you need to bring down an armored vehicle as fast as possible. M240 is much more appropriate as an infantry weapon, and is inappropriate as a mounted machine gun for use against vehicles, or in a helicopter or other long range moving position, infantry.
Cooling is another major issue addresed with the M134. The M134 may shoot 3000+ rounds per minute, but each barrel needs only shoot 500 rounds a minute, compared to the avg. 800 rpm of the m240, meaning that the m134 can fire in longer bursts than the m240 without melting
@samcycle6 The M134 weighs 22 pounds and is intended to suppres and take out light vehicles. It is impossible to fire a minigun from the hip. But if the minigun is mounted, it isn't just possible to operate the minigun with one man, its a piece of cake. Filling the magazine is harder than shooting this gun.
Vulcan was never meant to compete with a single barrel weapon. the M-240 is still and AWSOME automatic weapon.
N321MM 3 weeks ago
true the mini gun hits more but are the troops really going to use it on the ground?
bigshow1fan 3 weeks ago
one weapon fires more in a second than the other does in a minute.
is it even a contest?
bamarine247 1 month ago
keep pressing 2 for fap
jpcri 2 months ago
push the 3- 4 button LOL 8-D
pityka20 2 months ago
i need one of that for my university ...
bestisbmw 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestisbmw ... seek help.
Valyn66 1 month ago
Amazing, shooting 600 rounds hits more targets than 60!
maaachinima 2 months ago
The M134 Gatling Gun.
When shit needs to be fucked.
TehMoMoman 3 months ago
I dunno, the M134 is externally powered...what if you crashed and needed to fight off insurgents before rescue? There`s no question that the M134 can hit more in less time but it`s kind of a waste of ammo, not to mention your target getting obscured by the dust getting kicked up. I guess it all comes down to application...
grindorblackout1986 3 months ago
since the m134 has a extremely high fire rate it can go through more vehicles and its great against buildings aswell
XxWolfpack247xX 3 months ago
my taxes..
spartan1081990 3 months ago
I'll take the second one please.
DR1ZERO 3 months ago
Next up, M1903 vs M16.
Even if the target is not hit directly, target will be suppressed by the amount of debris that was thrown to the air.
Clearly, Shot density is the name of the game.
mayatk1 3 months ago
Nar that's like comparing a .44 mag to a rocket launcher, what one does more damage. This is a shit vid
mudaphucker 3 months ago
Now how can i get one of those in my trunk....
Talonusx2 4 months ago
It might seem like the minigun wins, but keep in mind the possible advantages. The m240 consumes less ammo at the risk of missing the target (which doesn't really matter anyway; the thing can hit its target at about 1.3 hits per second anyway) they both use the same cartridge as well. Also, what's the point of shooting a guy 100+ times when the target would be KIA in like 3 shots? I'm sticking with the m240.
GotMilkNova 4 months ago
No matter which weapon wins, but one thing is sure:
Hippies, get the fuck off my lawn!!
CommandoFin 4 months ago 2
Since the m134 fires about 5x more rounds then the m240 in the same time, you would expect it to hit, 5x more then the gattling cannon.
I counted that the m134 hit about 28 times, and the m240 5 times.
To be honest, not a surprised.. at all.
1337ASM 4 months ago
@1337ASM in the video it says how much they hit
M240 less then 12 M134 more then 100
Luger718A1 4 months ago
CHOPPER GUNNER =))))))))))))
reichstag10 5 months ago
Fuck the M240, the best is M134
18Reddy93 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like M240 ,but I love M134.
Troy428492 5 months ago
I like M240 ,but I love M134.
Troy428492 5 months ago
@Troy428492 same here
navySEALteam5 4 months ago
Ha ha. That's weak compared to what I can do with an M9. I could hit a target from more than 2 miles because I'm a perfect shot.
darkerego 5 months ago
@darkerego from a moving helicopter? I don't think so.
lookslikeabitch 5 months ago
@lookslikeabitch Yeah. I was shooting a 1911 and it hit a target from 10 miles away. I'm a perfect shot.
darkerego 5 months ago
@darkerego A 1911 45 round would drop before even going half a mile.
AUG351 5 months ago
@AUG351 Yes, I know. I've been sarcastic about the whole thing.
darkerego 5 months ago
@darkerego Lmfao you gotta be joking
pacaflockaflame 4 months ago
@pacaflockaflame Yeah, I was. I just wanted to see what type of responses I would get lol
darkerego 4 months ago
@darkerego Lmfao I was like this motherfuckers either 12 or he's fucking with all of us aha
pacaflockaflame 4 months ago
@pacaflockaflame or both o/0
lookslikeabitch 1 month ago
damn scary rain
crysis90war 5 months ago
M134-Hefty Hefty Hefty
M240-Wimpy Wimpy Wimpy
megotsawii 5 months ago
Both of these guns are inferior to the M2 or 12.7mm crew served guns, they have more range and punch than the M134
Defender78 6 months ago
i think the shooter of the m240 missed.. not the gun..
burjkhalifa98 6 months ago
h
ttp://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1466180124?fr=chie_my_notice_newans
good!
Vietnamautumnsnake 6 months ago
I have used an m240 in combat...who ever was firing that in this demonstration wasn't trying very hard....the m240 can perform much better than that....plus its compared with a gatling gun??? This is comparing apples to oranges..... this is just dillon trying to get buyers
bcraig3357 6 months ago
Thats like comparing a BB gun to an AK-47. No shit if the gun fires 50 rounds in one second compared to something that fires 5 rounds in one second.
Hey, and atleast you can CARRY an M240 and use it at the same time. You can't carry a 66lb Gatling gun with 10lbs of ammo and use it.
MetalSights 6 months ago
@MetalSights
You might not, but I can.
azaznator 6 months ago
@azaznator In a firefight? A 66lb gun with (if you were to have 3,500 rounds of 7.62x51) 74lb in ammo? That's 140lbs of equipment. Good luck carrying that for more than 10 minutes in a firefight. I can carry 140lb, sure, but that's not practical.
MetalSights 6 months ago
@MetalSights
I was joking man. Did you really think I could carry a Gatling gun in combat?
azaznator 6 months ago
@MetalSights Urrr and 2 truck batteries at 60 pounds a pop. And That only for half speed. Yeah....
TacticalSerenity17 6 months ago
if you shoot more ammo, you hit more... yes... did we really needed a proof for that ?
SnaChriB 7 months ago 33
@SnaChriB It's Time... Less time on a target gives you time for the rest regardless of the extra ammo being slung...
patrickrc51 1 month ago
lol Thats like a grenade to a missle pack
Thorgeirn 7 months ago
@oneil641 It's a Team Fortress 2 reference, of course it's not realistic.
Jzmt77 7 months ago
Lets hope they compare a butter knife to a machete next time.
PandaWithAShotgun 7 months ago
how heavy is the m134? Can a person carry it?And how strong is the recoil?
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish 66lbs. Yes, a person can carry it but no human can PRACTICALLY hold it and fire it. The recoil is very strong if it's not mounted on a car or helicopter.
socratesxv 7 months ago
I like the M240
freindlyapache101 7 months ago
I love Guns
moragon99 7 months ago
She weighs about 30 kilograms and fires probably 2 dollar 7.62×51mm NATO rounds at 3000 rounds per minute... It costs 1'200 dollars to fire this weapon for 12 secondsss.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!
CootPrankCalls 7 months ago
swiss cheese any one
hillbilly988 8 months ago
i love the sound of that gun !!
mistergunnar 8 months ago
I like the m60.
psycobillysutter 8 months ago
600 rounds of 7.62 do not cost $400,000...
Ultralism 8 months ago 37
@Ultralism
It's a quote from Team Fortress 2.
slapnpopbass 8 months ago
@Ultralism
7.62 X ?? is the catch
mackunknownattack 6 months ago
@Ultralism you forgot to factor, twelve seconds
midesmith1 4 months ago
M134 will rape any other type of portable weapon system. Nuff said
Pilot853 9 months ago
hell i rather prefer the m240 anytime
tucker1012 9 months ago
These idiots that make these outrageous dollar amount claims think they are convincing people how bad the military is for having them. What they just don't get is people are better informed than that and their claims are easily debunked. They also don't seem to get it makes them look like FOOLS and TOOLS.
dynamowhum 9 months ago
1:22
Well I'm convinced....
fedora657 9 months ago
Except you need to divide 9 by 3 4/7 by the fire rate, so the dillon is only about 1.5 times more likely to hit.
kyoko277 9 months ago
@kyoko277
A high-powered bolt-action rifle would be more likely to hit than both weapons but wouldn't be a good choice for suppression fire from a helicopter on a ground target.
jeffreyjackson1986 9 months ago
tumbs up that the m134 wins
jallajallaable 9 months ago
Thats totally incorrect. The Dillon M134 is chambered for 7.62 NATO rounds. Get your facts straight.
mktplyr76 9 months ago
what if both guns would actually fire the SAME AMOUNT OF BULLETS!
of course m134 gets more hits because it shoots like 10 times more bullets!
This video sucks.
eikka492 10 months ago
@eikka492 Yeah, I was just about to say that. :)
lets see the target after they M240 has fired that many rounds!
jimeh123 9 months ago
Did the two weapons fire the same amount of rounds?
SubzeroedMind 10 months ago
@SubzeroedMind
no, this indeed a wrong vids narated
areng871 9 months ago
This vid's garbage.....
nuff said.....
sureurmi565 10 months ago
When i saw the m240 i was like ok ok when they fired the m134 i was like holy shit you mother fucker
L3m0nad3Fun 10 months ago
WE GET IT! THE M134 SHOOTS FAST!
countolaf32 10 months ago
wish i had a gatling gun mounted on my bedroom window =D
WLOfails 10 months ago
@ArmyAvengencePball
Try another 2,000 rpm. It's closer to 6,000. Pretty ridiculous, right?
DarkerInfamy 10 months ago
They're both good, but here's a little problem: the M-134 can't be toted aound easily(or at all for that matter), and it needs an electrical power supply to operate. The M-240 doesn't need a power supply to operate, and you can carry it around easier.
FireBadger66 10 months ago
Can't carry a M134 into combat unlike the M240. Why not make a video comparing a .30.30 Winchester vs. MK 15 Phalanx
akjonny665 10 months ago
of course your 10x's more likely to hit the target, you're firing 4,000 rpm
ArmyAvengencePball 10 months ago
obviously the m134 is much more effective at suppressing a target then the m240 due to the fact that it has more stopping power, fires at much higher rps, and has less kick. Its just a much deadlier weapon.
JScheiwiller 11 months ago
for the role of a door gunner the m134d mini gun is better in the fact that it has a high rate of fire. this is proved in vietnam when the m60 with 550 rounds per minute was the primary door gunner weapon, they switched to many configurations of multiple m60's per chopper because the fire rate wasn't good enough for surpresion of the vc troops. so an m134d is better but you cant carry one like you could an m240, m60, or m249.
jimbob9593 11 months ago
ma non si chiama M249????
spazzola70 11 months ago
i agree comparison is not total valuable, but both are great weapons in their own situations. you wouldn't carry an m134 around in urban and/or jungle combat (unless you're in the movie predator), but from a helicoptor M134 owns. wonder if cost of bullets and weapon is a factor?
maalaea 11 months ago
sure by the time u hit 2 guys u wasted all ur ammo...so i go with m240
quangluu96 11 months ago
@quangluu96 Actually no. Helicopters carry 6000 rounds. The M134 shoots at a rate of 3000 rounds a minute, or 50 bullets a second. this means you have 2 minutes of consecutive firing. And since you shoot in 3-5 second shots you have alot of time on your hands. These are usually only used for big targets like LAV's or large groups of men. Sp to be more accurate, you run out of ammo about the time you hit 900 or more men. :)
mauriziosaviotti 11 months ago
Comment removed
hotKnife612 1 year ago
If you want volume, sure the minigun. But try humping that thing around haha - it's all about usage.
npr386 1 year ago
Not that comparable of weapons... the 240 is used on the ground as much as it is mounted. Hell I have cleared buildings with a M240B, try that with a mini gun.
glock19x300 1 year ago
Most of these comments miss the point. First, most rounds fired (other than from a sniper) are suppression. Neither of these weapons are likely to be used in full 10 round bursts, and targets are unlikely to stay in the open. The point of the video is that given X seconds of fire against a target that is exposed for X seconds the M134 is more likely to score a hit, and if it doesn't the target area will be well suppressed.
DragNetJoe 1 year ago 2
@DragNetJoe agree
idealyoulose 1 year ago
But it only takes one hit with a Remington bolt action rifle and the game is over.....
SirRetku 1 year ago
i think I crap my self oh its the m134
lokalllize 1 year ago
Spray and Pray comparison
bicepius 1 year ago
The M240 is only 650-900 round/min and the M134 is up to 6000. So it seems like they were trying to show accuracy in terms of hits on target, yet they made no mention of rounds expended! This is a bad comparison. The M134 would probably still win an accuracy test for sustained automatic fire like that since it's heavier and thus has less felt recoil, and doesn't fire from an open bolt, but at least that would be a more comparable measurement.
ssdwellah 1 year ago
This is a stupid video. its like comparing a rocket and bullet. they serve different combat roles.
ar90242 1 year ago
Oh look its my turn finally! Ok, here goes:
50 people are simulated exposed targets.
dayneedsaname 1 year ago
Dear Satan..
ZOCKER1001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
True Free energy devices exist,But the coverup is very strong,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
breeannaqktjbl 1 year ago
Dear Santa...
HeartbeatEnterprises 1 year ago
id like one of these in my backyard to shoot all those squirrels
alexmun133 1 year ago
The M134 looks great for killing Vietnamise civilians. Just don't lead 'em as much!
TheBlackStar999 1 year ago
I guess you do have more of a chance hitting the target with the M134. M134=3000 rounds a minute M240= 1300 rounds a minute.
SOUPCUP4U 1 year ago
Spraying M240 at the target, "LOLOLOL ITS NOT HITTING RITE GAIS???"
maaachinima 1 year ago
M134 is great for airborne or for suppressive and saturated fire where the shooter can't take his time to aim, along with vehicle movement.
However the M240 is what I would carry as a ground soldier. You can deploy in LMG mode or HMG for longer range suppressive fire. You can even use it as a rifle if you can squeeze of one round at a time. However, it is used in short bursts that makes it effective.
Mount it on a tripod, along with a good MG crew. You'll make a good defensive posture.
dishwasherman83 1 year ago
@dishwasherman83 yup you are right. like i said they are comparing two different types of weapons used in different combat roles. like comparing a sniper rifle and an assault rifle in a close quarter combat environment. obviously the assault rifle will outperform.
ar90242 1 year ago
You cant compare these two
donayrton 1 year ago 2
You can very cleary see the M134 won if you think m240 would of won your a moron think of 50 every sec. Gatling gun vs. the 1,324 rounds per minute
Alexander19851 1 year ago
this is the Power of a Gun
WalterR77 1 year ago
The M134 is meant to be a door gun for suppressing fire. When you've got a squad of Marines/Soldiers pinned down, the M134 is a much faster solution to their immediate problem. More rounds per second equals faster recovery of those pinned down Marines/Soldiers, so that they can do their job.
Like the old saying goes: "Ammo is cheap, Life is expensive." There is no 5 second respawn in combat. When you're dead, someone is writing your mother a letter. I'll take the M134 for support any day.
MDMartinezUSMC 1 year ago
You're right you are a loser and need to get a life. The only thing you're right about is extended bursts of 240. But there are 2 reasons for that. 240 need to maintain accuracy and it will over heat. If you were paying attention it said these weapon system can withstand longer bursts and have more concentrated shot group. Don't pretend to be subject matter expert cause of a video game. That's just pathetic
I know this cause I'm level 50 prestige 10 in CoD.
imaloserhavenolife 1 year ago
I dont know if this has anything to do with it but the m134 fires 13000000 rounds a sec vs the m240's 13.....
johnnybravo234 1 year ago
Yeah really nice demonstration.
What the brainiacs forget to mention is the amount of rounds fired by each weapon in that 10 second time period.
M240: 130 rounds
M134: 420 Rounds
tommygunner70 1 year ago
You're right you are a loser and need to get a life. The only thing you're right about is extended bursts of 240. But there are 2 reasons for that. 240 need to maintain accuracy and it will over heat. If you were paying attention it said these weapon system can withstand longer bursts and have more concentrated shot group. Don't pretend to be subject matter expert cause of a video game. That's just pathetic
generalgrant99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
get the fuck of my lawn
MrWerkdagen 1 year ago
this vid is garbage. first off, any weapon is based off shooter experience. personally, the m240 is deadly accurate and u dont shoot it with a large burst like that. u shot 5-9 rounds at a time. the shooter just threw those rounds down range. obviously the m134 will hit the target more times if its also shot at a blind burst since it can lay rounds down range must faster and with greater impact leaving a larger blast radius. dumb video
I know this cause I'm level 50 prestige 10 in CoD.
imaloserhavenolife 1 year ago 2
@imaloserhavenolife hahaha
paco903 1 year ago
She weighs 150 kilograms and fires custom 200 dollar custom tube cartridges at 10,000 rounds per minute. It costs 400,000 dollars to fire this weapon for 12 seconds.
the4armedmonk 1 year ago 39
@the4armedmonk That's interesting how you refer to the gun as a "she".
HaX0Rmedia 9 months ago
@the4armedmonk you are wrong sir, it is just the 7.62x51 nato
padrinoel 9 months ago
@the4armedmonk
idk, but if your talking about the minigun, it shoots 7.62X51mm NATO rounds, and usually around 4,000-6,000 rounds per minute.
ac060 8 months ago
@the4armedmonk Are you on crack!? $400,000 dollars for 12 SECONDS. Are you kidding me, where on earth did you read that from!? More like $600 per minute.
tebbs94 7 months ago
@tebbs94, Its a saying from a video game. I think its from TF2.
Madsniper14 6 months ago
@the4armedmonk I doesn't cost that much to fire the M134 for 12 seconds. Anyone who thought you're right isn't thinking critically. The M134 fires at about 4000 rounds per minute. So in 12 seconds, it will fire 4000 / 5 or about 800 rounds. According to you, each bullet costs 5000 dollars. The M134 fires the 7.62 x 51mm round. I can buy those at a store for 1 dollar each. 800 DOLLARS FOR 12 SECONDS is a more appropriate guess.
socratesxv 7 months ago
@the4armedmonk yeah but if you got a minigun you can destroy everything it's a beast, my favourite machine gun!!!
PlayfulRobinho 7 months ago
@the4armedmonk and what about the m240? like 200 dollars. god bless america
Mr108454 6 months ago
@the4armedmonk If you are talking about an m134, all of your stats are wrong.
davidhlusko 6 months ago
I Like this :D
MadMiniGun 1 year ago
i would have the m132, just because you put more bullets in the target, in less time... dont relly think u will 4-10 burst in a battle sitiuation, probably just spray and pray...
TheCutekillah 1 year ago
it isnt about killing the enemy. You spray, 2 or 3 go down wounded or killed, the rest hits the ground surpressed, looks up, stops shooting at bluforce.
cassius969 1 year ago
I like metal storm cuz it shoots like a million rounds a minute haha where did that thing go? It was on tv years ago...
garrettzkool63 1 year ago
@garrettzkool63 thers a video for it in the suggestion box for this vid haha
boratfan6492 1 year ago
Well no duh it is more likely that it is gonna hit something. When you spray that many bullets, you're bound to hit something.
KiwiLovin7 1 year ago
M240 should be mostly used for ground support and the M134 for quick target acquiring in Hummers, helicopters, tanks, etc...
jmk0309 1 year ago
@jmk0309 dam rite!
TheCutekillah 1 year ago
I'd hate to be the cameraguy who had to record the target boards getting hit!
Defender78 1 year ago
@Defender78 its on a tripod
yakky44 1 year ago
It's not so much the gun but when i hear that m134, i'm gone.
creator907 1 year ago
holy fuck
berd219 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StingerekPL
M134 fires 4000 rounds/minute, and 667 rounds/10 seconds.
M240 fires 950 rounds/minute, and 158 rounds/10 seconds.
M134 has 15% efficiency
M240 has 8% efficiency.
Math fail.
cheesyflames 1 year ago
I can guarantee, as a 240b gunner i would have had that target cut in half.
Anathema1984 1 year ago 2
Either way, That's not bad shooting...over open sights...in a moving helicopter to a far away target... 'dem doorgunners got skill! :)
OzClawhammer 1 year ago
The point of this video, for anyone who doesn't get it, is that if you are moving quickly and have a small amount of time to shoot at a target the M134 is much better. The price of ammo is tiny, considering your flying a helicopter around for probably thousands of dollars an hour. Might as well fuck up what you shoot at...
Ryantron9000 1 year ago
i dont understand why everyone is bitching. i mean jesus who cares if its more expensive to use the M134 and it wastes alot of bullets. think about it, a single javelin missle is 45K. price of a single F22 raptor, 220Million (close to that) frankly i dont think the U.S. government gives a flying fuck how much it costs. the only thing that matters is shock and awe (and penis size). and what better way to display shock and awe (and penis size)? spend as much money on the biggest guns possible.
Church1127 1 year ago
@Church1127 but this is a completely pointless video. its sorta like comparing an A-10 Warhawk to a Lockheed F-117 NightHawk. ones meant to destroy anything no matter the cost as well as have immense shock and awe. while the other is meant to be more surgical and precise.
Church1127 1 year ago
@Church1127 The M240 was known as one of the best helicopter turrets for a long time. The video is only showing the progressive advancement from the M240 to the obviously better M134. These people aren't randomly choosing some gun & saying look at the difference.
ksalbrecht88 1 year ago
@Church1127 Its a WARTHOG, not warhawk.
FutureMarine1775USA 1 year ago
@FutureMarine1775USA touche it is a warthog and not warhawk. sorry about that.
Church1127 1 year ago
Comment removed
Robbieifyoucan 1 year ago
How many Muslimes per minute can I expect to be sent to meet Allah & those toothless 72 virgins..?
golight 1 year ago
I'd rather be backed by the $450 model, than the $30 model.
TheSdenne 1 year ago
dam imho the m240 should stay a lmg and not mounted hmg cuz compared to the vulcan it didnt stand a chance
DirgeHQ 1 year ago
HOLY FUCK!!!
XDeathRaze777X 1 year ago
i saw this on futureweapons
rotck1 1 year ago
Its a different class of weapon. The 240 is man portable, the gatling gun isn't.
Anathema1984 1 year ago
Anybody who does the math says the M240 is better. Heres a new question. Which would be more likely to make you run like hell? 1500 rounds in 10 seconds or 150? I would rather get shot at by an M240, but thats just me. Good luck surviving 1500 rounds in 10 seconds :)
ModernCombatTactics 1 year ago
this vid is garbage. first off, any weapon is based off shooter experience. personally, the m240 is deadly accurate and u dont shoot it with a large burst like that. u shot 5-9 rounds at a time. the shooter just threw those rounds down range. obviously the m134 will hit the target more times if its also shot at a blind burst since it can lay rounds down range must faster and with greater impact leaving a larger blast radius. dumb video
coraliscopuselaborat 1 year ago 50
@coraliscopuselaborat Actually the mounted machine guns on choppers are not designed to provide accurate fire support. A moving chopper is not the best platform for that. It is a matter of providing suppressing fire. Even if the bullets do not all go "into the target", the tactic is to suppress the enemy forces. With both a barrage of bullets and pyschological aspect on enemies. The main task of the onboard MGs is to provide fire support during the insertion/extraction. Not pure CAS missions.
Victortrotska 1 year ago
@coraliscopuselaborat This is not surprising since the video was made by DillonAero : just an advertizing video for its product, the M134.
Bidooshram 1 year ago
@coraliscopuselaborat M240 is a saw. Squad auto weapon used mainly for surpressing fire, not firing short controlled bursts.
muskabulldog 1 year ago
@muskabulldog The M240 and the M249 are completely different weapons.. I'm not sure where you got your info, but Call of Duty is the worst place to get your gun information.
Spartan0189 1 year ago
@coraliscopuselaborat
The fact of the matter is if you are firing from a chopper generally you are not shooting at a single target and in that case you want Area and spread for large groups, and for that M240 does a fine job but if you need accuracy you want the M134D
BrotherVBrother 1 year ago
@coraliscopuselaborat i agree with all except it is a cool video because, its showing the beaten zone of the two guns and it shows that the mini gun has a much tighter cone of fire. as a 240 gunner i say i could put a tighter shot group down range than the guy in this vid but i couldnt touch what that mini did.
idealyoulose 1 year ago
@coraliscopuselaborat The point of it was not to say the M134 is more accurate than the M240, merely to show how the M134 is more effective as an area suppression weapon than the M240. It's only a dumb video if you look at from a dumb perspective :)
Stealthgato 1 year ago 54
@coraliscopuselaborat Doesnt matter. The M134 Is has a 9-1 Hit ratio compared to the M240. even if shot in bursts no matter what the M134 still is more accurate and its impossible to shoot 5-9 rounds at a time because the M134 shoots at a rate of 3000 rounds a minute, or 50 rounds a second. this weapon is ment for londs 3-5 second bursts, meaning about 150-250 rounds at a target. This makes it so that u dont need much experiance. douche bag get ur facts.
mauriziosaviotti 11 months ago
@coraliscopuselaborat theyre probably rating off of a rabbit firing the weapon because i fully agree
jimjam3442 10 months ago
@coraliscopuselaborat You call that a large burst!? It wasn't even a burst, HE FIRING FULLY AUTOMATIC!!!!
Maybe he's a CoD player.....
sureurmi565 10 months ago
This guy has never f---in held a m240 or M134d also I would rather unjam a m240 and carry a it than a M134D. He never mentions how much ammo the gunner wastes on the 10 sec burst by the M134 that is a lot of wasted ammo you hit a target once it will go down. That over kill in ammo gets f--in heavy also. M240 gets the job done the M134 is retarded over kill
adamyandell 1 year ago
@adamyandell You stick to your M240 when you need to bring down an armored vehicle as fast as possible. M240 is much more appropriate as an infantry weapon, and is inappropriate as a mounted machine gun for use against vehicles, or in a helicopter or other long range moving position, infantry.
kevlar60442 1 year ago
Cooling is another major issue addresed with the M134. The M134 may shoot 3000+ rounds per minute, but each barrel needs only shoot 500 rounds a minute, compared to the avg. 800 rpm of the m240, meaning that the m134 can fire in longer bursts than the m240 without melting
kevlar60442 1 year ago
stupid comparison... Its like saying "we'll put this Dodge Caravan against a Ferrari Enzo race car and see who will win a 0-60mph contest"
scubaman3d 1 year ago
50 rounds per second. That's pretty impressive.
0nlyhalfevil333 1 year ago
this takes trigger-happy concept to another level :P
ChenteMotorsports69 1 year ago
I can't hear the Vuvuzela over the M134.
ePsil0n74 1 year ago 19
it shoots 3000 rounds a minute
that's 50 rounds a second (50 x 60 = 3000)
50 x 10 (for ten seconds) = 500
100 of the bullets hit the target
therefore 1 in 5 of the M134 Gatling Gun's rounds made contact.
not bad.
braydenbeautiful 1 year ago 2
M240 is designed to be operated by one or two men. If one man wanna operate a M134, he had to be a terminator or some kind of superman.
samcycle6 1 year ago
@samcycle6 The M134 weighs 22 pounds and is intended to suppres and take out light vehicles. It is impossible to fire a minigun from the hip. But if the minigun is mounted, it isn't just possible to operate the minigun with one man, its a piece of cake. Filling the magazine is harder than shooting this gun.
kevlar60442 1 year ago