Squeaky But Strong 2,000 RPM Autocannon

Executive Summary: The claim “Squeaky But Strong 2,000 RPM Autocannon” is a compressed assertion that mixes accurate historical examples of ~2,000 rounds-per-minute systems with several prominent autocannons that do not meet that figure; it is therefore only partially accurate depending on which weapon is intended. Contemporary, documented autocannons run from low hundreds of rounds per minute to multi-thousand rpm Gatling-type guns, and multiple sources in the provided set show both support for a 2,000 rpm characterization (notably twin-barrel or dual‑barrel systems) and many counterexamples where the rate is well below 2,000 rpm (chain guns and single-barrel Bushmaster designs) ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

1. What people are actually claiming — a catchy label hiding multiple technical claims: The phrase bundles three separate technical ideas: that the weapon is an “autocannon” (20–40 mm class or naval/AA gun), that it achieves a sustained or cyclic rate near 2,000 rounds per minute, and that it is “squeaky but strong” — suggesting light, perhaps noisy but robust performance. The dataset shows sources describing different families: Soviet twin-barrel towed AA pieces and naval twin systems reporting near-2,000 cyclical figures, plus single-barrel Bushmaster-style chain guns with rates around 200 rpm, and Gatling rotary guns exceeding 3,000–4,200 rpm. The available materials therefore indicate the label could fit some systems but misleads if applied generically across autocannon types ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [7]}.

2. Evidence that supports a 2,000 rpm figure — twin-barrel and combined systems: Historical and modern twin-barrel autocannons commonly publish system rates that sum per-barrel cyclic rates to around 2,000 rpm. The ZU-23-2 anti‑aircraft twin 23 mm gun is cited with a cyclic rate of 2,000 rpm (400 rpm practical per cannon cited) and is frequently used mounted on vehicles, supporting the plausibility of a 2,000 rpm descriptor for that family ^[1]. Similarly, naval dual‑barrel systems like the AK-230 can be described as a system producing roughly 2,000 rpm even though that figure comes from summing two barrels at ~1,000 rpm each, demonstrating how phrasing can create a legitimate but context‑dependent 2,000 rpm claim ^[2].

3. Evidence that contradicts or narrows the claim — chain guns and single-barrel autocannons: Several authoritative sources in the set clearly contradict a blanket 2,000 rpm assertion: modern Bushmaster chain guns (Mk44S, XM813) and the widely used M242 Bushmaster typically fire in the ~200 rpm range, with documentation stressing reliability and modularity rather than extreme cyclic speed. These systems are presented as low‑to‑moderate rate autocannons optimized for integration and air‑bursts rather than raw cyclic volume, so labeling them “2,000 rpm” is factually incorrect for those designs ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

4. High‑rate outliers — Gatling and Gast‑principle systems exceed 2,000 rpm, context matters: Several rotary Gatling and Gast-principle twin designs produce rates well above 2,000 rpm. The GAU‑8/A and GSh‑23L are cited with cyclic rates far exceeding 2,000 rpm, the former reaching ~4,200 rpm and the latter near 3,400 rpm, establishing that 2,000 rpm sits within a real range of autocannon performance but is not unique or universal. These high rates usually apply to aircraft or shipboard guns optimized for short bursts; sustained fire at those rates carries weight, heat, and ammunition-supply implications that matter for operational use ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Why the confusion is endemic — terms, cyclic vs. practical rate, and system summing: Discrepancies arise from three recurrent missteps in public claims: conflating cyclic (maximum mechanical) and practical (sustained under operational limits) rates; summing per‑barrel cyclic rates to quote a system total without clarifying that figure; and applying a single descriptor across different weapon families that have divergent design goals. The sources show examples of each: ZU-23-2 and AK-230 use per‑system presentation to reach 2,000 rpm, chain guns intentionally document much lower rates, and Gatling guns exceed those numbers by design. Accurate assessment requires naming the specific model and whether the quoted rate is cyclic or practical ^{[1] [2] [3] [6]}.

Bottom line: The statement is partly true in that some autocannon systems are accurately described at or near 2,000 rpm, but it is overbroad and potentially misleading when used without naming the system or clarifying cyclic versus practical rate; modern autocannon performance spans from ~200 rpm to several thousand rpm depending on design and role ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.