PDA

View Full Version : Would the BAR be a good combat rifle for today?


Doug.38PR
August 17, 2006, 04:00 PM
Would the BAR be a good or effective combat rifle for today? I understand it stood up to recoil far better than it's decendant the M-14 and it's 30.06 round has more power than the .308. It is a high capacity rifle that has more power and a larger caliber than the modern M-16.

TNT
August 17, 2006, 04:13 PM
In the proper hands it is leathal, having fired my dad's BAR the recoil is very controllable range and knock down is great. mag capacity would would be it's only rel set back next to it's over all weight. But with so many advancements it other fields it is hard to think that it would far well. The 240B's and G's have simply replaced them, for it's time it was truly a work of art and something for other to emmulate.

TNT
August 17, 2006, 04:30 PM
on a side note the BAR with AP rounds was the weapon of choice in urban warfare

BUSTER51
August 17, 2006, 04:51 PM
sure ,if you think a Serman tank would be feildable today.:D

tINY
August 17, 2006, 05:02 PM
It worked for Clyde Barrow - probably would still be a good choice for combat against the Feds.....

http://texashideout.tripod.com/clydenbar.jpg


-tINY

swampdog
August 17, 2006, 05:06 PM
BAR specs:

Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type
M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)
M1918A2 fully automatic
Caliber .30 (30-06)
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines
(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds
(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)

M60E3 Specs (issued in 1957)

Length: 42.4 inches (107.70 centimeters)
Weight: 18.75 pounds (8.51 kilograms)
Bore diameter: 7.62mm (.308 inches)
Maximum effective range: 3609.1 feet (1100 meters)
Maximum range: 2.3 miles (3725 meters)
Muzzle velocity: 2800 feet (853 meters) per second
Rates of fire:
Cyclic: 550 rounds per minute
Rapid: 100 rounds per minute*
Sustained: 100 rounds per minute*
(* with barrel changes at each 100 rounds)

I know which 18.5 pounds I'd rather hump.

oldbillthundercheif
August 17, 2006, 05:39 PM
Hey Buster, the Sherman tank was a piece of junk back when it was the best we had. The gun was useless against armor, it had thin armor, and it burned if you even looked at it funny.

The BAR, on the other hand, was the best thing one man could lug around. It would be entirely servicable today if it was belt-fed and weighed a few pounds less. Heck, it might be servicable without those mods...

I'm sure somebody is still using them somewhere in africa or the far-east.

VirgilCaine
August 17, 2006, 05:41 PM
The BAR's a drag to field strip. Lots of little parts.

Doug.38PR
August 17, 2006, 05:55 PM
why would the magazine capacity be a problem? 20 rounds is about average for most rifles today including the M-16 which holds 10-20-30 average. In fact, Making a drum magazine for a BAR probably wouldn't be too much trouble as long as something is feeding rounds into the gun

Blackwater OPS
August 17, 2006, 05:58 PM
I don't think it's fair to compare it to an M16, but a M249 or M240 would blow it away. (Pun intended :))

Death from Afar
August 17, 2006, 06:09 PM
I had the pleasure of acting for an old gentleman who was a Sherman Commander it Italy in WW2. He told me a story about tangling with a Tiger 1 which was unpleasent for some of his shermans- and feeling the wind of an 88mm round would not have been fun. The Germans called them "Tommy Cookers".

The BAR is an old system. They weigh a tonne, and are not controllable on Auto. They are hard to strip, and have lots of fiddly bits. Would rather have one than a poxy SKS mind you! ;)

dave0520
August 17, 2006, 06:10 PM
Swampdog, good comparison, but modern .30-06 ammo does about 2900 FPS which gives it a little more range. Unless, of course, you're comparing 165 grain .30-06 to 150 grain .308. I think I would want 165 grainers for a LMG anyway for even better ballistic coefficient/range.

Pappy John
August 17, 2006, 06:28 PM
Eighteen and one-half pounds!!

Plus 240 rounds of 30-06.

A day or two of huffin' that around and an M-4 would look mighty good.

swampdog
August 17, 2006, 06:43 PM
dave0520,

I wasn't actually comparing the calibers, although it might have seemed like that. My point was that if I wanted to carry a 18.5 lb weapon, there were better ones available. I don't want to get into the 30/06 vs. .308 dispute.

Doug.38PR,

The BAR was great in its day. It was never considered a "combat rifle", but a light machine gun, with one being issued to a "squad" and carried by the "BAR man". An early antecedent to the modern SAW, I believe it was developed to give troops assaulting across no-man's land during WW1 mobile firepower. It shouldn't be considered a "battle rifle", like the M1, M-14, or M-16 that it's being compared too.

In its proper role, I'm sure it would be just as effective now as then, but there are better choices available. As far as it being a "good combat rifle", it never was one.

BreacherUp!
August 17, 2006, 07:21 PM
As was mentioned, the BAR was the squads auto rifle. This is accomplished today by the M249. A quick look at comparisons:
M249:
With bipod and tools: 15.16 pounds (6.88 kilograms)
200-round box magazine: 6.92 pounds (3.14 kilograms)
Maximum effective range: 3281 feet (1000 meters) for an area target
Maximum range: 2.23 miles (3.6 kilometers)
Rates of fire:
Cyclic: 725 rounds per minute
Sustained: 85 rounds per minute

BAR:
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)

Bottom line, the SAW delivers 175 more rounds p/min, at approx a 400 yd longer distance, and weighs 3 lbs. less. Plus a SAW gunner may carry 3-4 200 rnd boxes, and the A-gunner even more. VERY easy to field strip (also takes down very much like the M240 series). What the M249 lacks in caliber it makes up in volume of fire. NO COMPARISON

TNT
August 17, 2006, 10:01 PM
Death from Afar, having dealt with a BAR personally I can say firing in Full Automatic it is very controllable not sure which one you fired but the one I fired was very controllable. Other BAR gunners I talked to from the old school USMC have told me they would sooner take a BAR than a M-14 for the simple reason that in auto mode you can control it and if you have problems with the fast rate you just switch it over to the slow rate. But the weight of the gun proved to your advantage in a fire fight it alone helped control the recoil. Compared to other counterparts of its kind the BAR is hands down king of the Titans comparing with the BM-59 and the M-14. All this said with respect and taking nothing away from what you said just telling you from personal experience IMO Heavy yes awkward yes as for the range estimates I would say that the BAR would do as good as the M-60 I will research that and get back on that one.

silicon wolverine
August 17, 2006, 10:04 PM
If you modernized the BAR it wouldnt be too bad. Imagine a BAR with an alloy reciever, synthetic furniture, beta-c drum mag and scout type forend bipod. WOOT!

SW

TNT
August 17, 2006, 10:10 PM
think about it what would John Browning do to make the BAR more competitive to the rest of the weapons in its class? Nice though though SW I like it:D

Eightball
August 17, 2006, 10:10 PM
If it was in .308, it would be a perfect MG--very accurate, etc. Increase mag capacity, maybe even add a drum for fixed mount variants.

HOWEVER--i'm not stupid. It is heavy, wouldn't be fun to lug around, and would be a nightmare for logistical support. HOWEVER--it'd be a perfect fit for the navy, where it's still a ship-borne force that could take oodles of .308, or .30-06, still. Accurate enough single shots, plenty easy to use FA if on a pintle mount. Would come in handy against suicide boats like in the Cole's instance.

aspen1964
August 17, 2006, 10:13 PM
the 5.56mm is everything to snicker at..if you are talking long-range ability...it doesn't have any compared to the old 30-06...the m14 was a total failure in auto-mode because of it's too light weight..today's soldiers are so bogged down in weight with armor, maybe they need ultra light weapons so they can stand up...GRUNT!!!

Death from Afar
August 17, 2006, 10:14 PM
Death from Afar, having dealt with a BAR personally I can say firing in Full Automatic it is very controllable not sure which one you fired but the one I fired was very controllable. Other BAR gunners I talked to from the old school USMC have told me they would sooner take a BAR than a M-14 for the simple reason that in auto mode you can control it and if you have problems with the fast rate you just switch it over to the slow rate. But the weight of the gun proved to your advantage in a fire fight it alone helped control the recoil. Compared to other counterparts of its kind the BAR is hands down king of the Titans comparing with the BM-59 and the M-14. All this said with respect and taking nothing away from what you said just telling you from personal experience IMO Heavy yes awkward yes as for the range estimates I would say that the BAR would do as good as the M-60 I will research that and get back on that one.

Thats proabably a good point. I fired one many many moons ago, and was not at all familier with automatics at that time. I dont think I was really controlling the weapon, so your comments I accept. It definatly would be more controllable than a L1A1 or m14 on auto.

TNT
August 17, 2006, 10:22 PM
the only reason I said that Death from Afar is because my dad has one fired it countless times and guess who ends up cleaning it one guess....................:eek:

Doug.38PR
August 17, 2006, 11:01 PM
Death from Afar, having dealt with a BAR personally I can say firing in Full Automatic it is very controllable not sure which one you fired but the one I fired was very controllable. Other BAR gunners I talked to from the old school USMC have told me they would sooner take a BAR than a M-14 for the simple reason that in auto mode you can control it

the m14 was a total failure in auto-mode because of it's too light weight..today's soldiers are so bogged down in weight with armor, maybe they need ultra light weapons so they can stand up...GRUNT

Dad, a former marine '64-'67 just said the same thing to me earlier today when we were talking about the BAR and the M-14. He trained with the M-14 and as a fully auto rifle it was VERY hard to control and very few men could manage it. Fortunately, back then, only one out of every 4 men in the squad had full auto....but the BAR would have been a much better choice for fire and suppress tactics.

Lignite
August 17, 2006, 11:17 PM
An interesting side note on the BAR. 1960's US Marine Corp doctrine told drill sergeants to alwayse find the smallest volunteer possible to hump the BAR. Do they still do this today for the SAW?

Crosshair
August 18, 2006, 12:30 AM
The current M240 is little more than a BAR flipped upside down and adapted to belt feed. Seems to work good. Though it still has the same problem as the original BAR, it's heavy. Improved versions of the M60 (M60E4) are just as (or more, depending on who you talk to) reliable than the M240, weigh less, and have better features/ergonomics. With all the original faults resolved through proper design it seems that the M60E4 is the new standard to beat. (Just as the STK Ultimax 100 is moving to replace the M249 SAW)

Blackwater OPS
August 18, 2006, 01:17 AM
An interesting side note on the BAR. 1960's US Marine Corp doctrine told drill sergeants to alwayse find the smallest volunteer possible to hump the BAR. Do they still do this today for the SAW?

Naw, I always got the heavy stuff and I'm about 215 and 5'11. Usually the person who wants it gets it. I did not mind the extra weight in exchange for a bit more firepower. The M60 on the other hand jams. A lot. Like, always.

Art Eatman
August 18, 2006, 08:35 AM
From the FWIW Department: Some years back, the SOF Magazine crowd took some full-auto stuff out for a comparison test. Informal; the primary target was a three-foot rock out around 500 yards.

BAR, M14, G3, and IIRC an FAL sort of thing.

The BAR was the only one that could be kept on target throughout a full magazine. Its weight was the key.

In passing: I once worked with a guy who was a USMC Medic in the Pacific ETO in WW II, from Guadalcanal on. He commented to me that most BAR guys were on the smaller side. Further, that smaller guys seemed to have more endurance in humping loads. Just a generality...

Regarding comments about the M60: Think about John Ross' comment in Unintended Consequences (I think that's where I read it) that ever since the 1934 NFA there have been few worthwhile full-auto critters designed here in the U.S. Today's JMB would either focus on civilian stuff, or work for somebody like H&K.

Art

STLRN
August 18, 2006, 09:26 AM
Really would suck to do MOUT with, especially these days when you are wearing all your war gear. Today with all your armor, etc I wouldn't want the overly heavy ammo and magazines. I personally switched back from H&K mags to standard Aluminum mags for my M4 when my required load increased to 12 magazines, that weight adds up quick.

HorseSoldier
August 18, 2006, 09:38 AM
BAR? Newfangled silliness. People need to man up and get the Lewis Guns back in the field. :)

But, anyway, there's a reason why the BAR, the M1, and the 30-06 round are all considered obsolete (even if all were quite capable in their day and age).

In the case of the BAR, it is more controllable than an M14 or FAL in full auto fire . . . but who uses full auto fire today with individual weapons? We have crew served weapons for base of fire, suppression, and such, and both the 240 and the SAW beat a BAR hands down in that role. End of the day it's too heavy for consideration as a service rifle, and too light for a crew served weapon by today's standards.

STLRN
August 18, 2006, 09:47 AM
Back when we still fired from the back of our vehicle on the move we always went to burst as a default mode.

I cannot speak for the army, the but the Marine Corps did start reemphasising firing on burst because we found it was 1) faster taking people down than CP and HP and 2) Many Jihadist were on drugs.

TheFacts
August 18, 2006, 12:08 PM
BAR all the way!! :D

Yeah, yeah, I know it was too heavy to be used as a presicion rifle (just ask Bonnie Parker :rolleyes:) and was too light to be used as an GPMG but at least it was virtually unbreakable (solid steel) and, above all else, the god of guns himself (J. Browning) designed it.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

IZinterrogator
August 18, 2006, 12:12 PM
The Army emphasizes burst for firing on the move also. Reduces problems in misjudging your lead on the target.

As for the BAR, a 200-round belt of 5.56mm in a SAW beats a 20-round magazine of .30-06 in a BAR, IMHO. The BAR was considered outclassed by the belt-fed MG-42 in its day, and they were both issued at the squad level. Just because a weapon was considered good in its day doesn't mean that it fits into modern infantry tactics well enough to be an adequate replacement for today's weapons.

2400
August 18, 2006, 12:21 PM
Would the BAR be a good combat rifle for today?

Yes

Limeyfellow
August 18, 2006, 12:59 PM
The BAR needs a good update to it to make it worth anything over what we already have available today.

Its sad that it would have been very useful at the end of WW1 though the US generals didn't want it to fall into German hands so armed them with the Chauchat instead.

The Bar was okay in WW2 but even then it didn't compare to the Bren or Mg42. You couldn't even switch out the barrel like the others so were limited on supressive fire compared to other systems introduced. The sheer amount of them fielded though with US troops helped, but it was only part of a much larger system and was mainly there because there wasn't another system ready to be deployed.

Nowadays its doesn't really have much point. We have machine guns such as the SAW and for fixed positions you have heavier mgs. We have better designs for designated marksmanship rifles. Its just had its day with its current design and would require a major redesign to make it fit with current military practices and logistics.

TNT
August 18, 2006, 02:37 PM
MGs had a problem they fired to fast and then the postitions were over run because they had no more ammo. GI's learned real quick that you kept your head down and the cyclic rate was so fast that they would literally run themselves out of ammo. Out classed not in my eyes, the ME262 out classed everything we had in the air too but it was not enought to win the war. Limeyfellow your right it would have to be upgraded for the BAR to be effective now. For its time It served well
Hey IZinterrogator the .50 cal served well for its time too and its still here dont mean its outdated does it? (J/K) I get your point though

MTMilitiaman
August 18, 2006, 02:52 PM
why would the magazine capacity be a problem? 20 rounds is about average for most rifles today including the M-16 which holds 10-20-30 average. In fact, Making a drum magazine for a BAR probably wouldn't be too much trouble as long as something is feeding rounds into the gun

The M16 isn't typically issued as a fire support weapon, and in its current configurations, isn't even capable of true automatic fire. It has a 3 round burst limiter, and even that, according to my brother, an 11 Bravo in the Army, is rarely used. The BAR was an automatic rifle. In fact, that is what the "A" stands for. It was for automatic fire support. And it has simply been outclassed in this area today. The Browning Automatic Rifle is truely obsolete today. It was a fine weapon in its time, but it can't compete with the firepower available from more modern designs.
The 7.62x51 was created to utilize a more effecient case design and improvements in propellents to match the ballistics of the older 7.62x63 ball load, and did this very effectively. Actual differences between the standard 147 gr M80 ball load for the 7.62x51 and the comparible .30-06 ball round are nearly identical--probably within 100 fps of each other for most loads--and it certainly isn't worth a difference of 80 rounds between the 100 round belt of the M240G and the 20 round magazine of the BAR.
Plus, as Crosshair already pointed out, the gas system of the M240 and 249 is nearly indentical to that of the BAR, just upside down.
So yes, the BAR could still kill someone today and still be wielded effectively, but there are far better options available and the older weapon is simply too heavy in relation to the firepower it offers to be effecient on the modern battlefield.

tINY
August 18, 2006, 03:33 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/BarM1918VWM.jpg

guntotin_fool
August 19, 2006, 08:05 PM
Would the BAR be good today, NO!

Heavy, limited to one (small) capacity magazine. It has no fast change barrel capacity. HEAVY, very sensitive to ammo condition. Lots of itsy bitsy parts to field strip.

Re the "only controllable full auto" not so. I have fired full auto G3's and FAL's and found them to be just fine on full auto. It all depends where you put the weapon. BAR's have that reputation because you slide your front hand in close, and let the weight of the barrel hold the recoil down. With a G3 or a FAL you do the same and leave the sling around your elbow. Sure a full auto 9 pound rifle is going to bounce a bit more than an 19 pounder, but it is still controllable.

For a full auto, combat rifle, the G3 and the FAL are pretty darn hard to beat. When you get to the assault rifle class, like AR and AK's and the like, they seem to be winning the selection process wars because troops like have LOTS of ammo with them. They are easier to master the recoil of, and they are really cheap to build. (ok AK's are at least)

The new darling of the LMG class seems to be the above mentioned ultimax. weighing under 5 kilos, or 11 pounds, the weapon has won several field trials and IIRC is being tested by some US troops in Iraq now.

http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=134

The israeli Negev is also a strong contender as it is very robust, yet light weight and is combat proven.

The BAR was the answer to what JMB saw as the need in 1915-8 for a man portable machine gun. The questions have changed. It answers the older questions just fine, but now, it is outdated.

Death from Afar
August 20, 2006, 03:59 PM
BAR? Newfangled silliness.

LOL:D

Socrates
August 20, 2006, 04:32 PM
AS A BATTLE RIFLE, in combat where transit is done mainly by motor vehicles, why is the weight a factor?

What is the war really like in Iraq? What tactics are used?
How much walking is required? How much long range shooting?

S

guntotin_fool
August 20, 2006, 10:38 PM
Well it all depends where you are, My good friend who just got back says all they did was walk. They had a commander who believed that by walking they got to build the trust of the locals, They would go on long long walks, sometimes 20 30 miles, just walking around all over their district, letting the people know who they were and what they were up to.

Most of the trucks you see are re supply convoys, These are easy pickings as they are often heavy, slow and loaded with things that go boom when you blow them up.

The BAR is out dated. just the Krag rifle or the M98, great in there time, still useful perhaps to a civilian in a SHTF situation but no longer relevant on the modern battlefield.

BlueTrain
August 21, 2006, 07:54 AM
Mention of the fact that the BAR did not have a quick change barrel makes me think of a few oddities of weapon design, both good and bad.

The M60, not a bad machine gun, has a quick change barrel but whoever designed it evidently thought that you need to change the bipod whenever you changed the barrel. I now wonder if barrels were ever actually changed in combat.

On the other hand, the M240 was finally adopted by the US Army and Marine Corps, after it was introduced in the rest of the world before 1960. But the first thing the Americans changed was to add a handguard, which was evidently something nobody else had thought to do in the first thirty years. The tripod for it looks funny though.

The Germans, as you know, used the MG34 and MG42 for everything (don't think the MG42 was ever used as a coaxial during the war) and in the infantry, some were used as heavy machine guns and had a fancy tripod. The heavy machine gun sections came with two spare barrels while the ones in the rifle squads only had one spare each. I assume they changed them daily! As a footnote, the later MG42/MG1/MG59, or whatever it was called, in 7.62 NATO, was widely distributed and used by several armies, yet one never sees anything about its use after WWII. I just wonder what people think of it now.

The BAR, to return to the subject at hand, was actually quite popular in its day and was used by other armies as well, though I think FN manufactured them and with a slightly different configuration. Both the Swedes and the Poles used them.

shaggy
August 21, 2006, 03:31 PM
As a footnote, the later MG42/MG1/MG59, or whatever it was called, in 7.62 NATO, was widely distributed and used by several armies, yet one never sees anything about its use after WWII. I just wonder what people think of it now.

There's the MG74 and the MG3 - both of which are direct descendants (in fact, almost exact clones) of the MG42, but in NATO standard 7.62x51 rather than the original 8mm. They are still in service today in many countries and still one of the best GPMGs of all time. Important to note, however, is that among the other improvements in the MG74/3 over the MG42, there are now heavier bolts to slow the RoF down significantly.

FWIW, I thought long and hard about buying either an MG42 or an M60 and finally chose the '42 over the pig. Even though the price was significantly more for the '42, the MG42/MG3/MG74 is a far better weapon than the M60.

'75Scout
August 21, 2006, 03:44 PM
Not as a general issue combat rifle. But to serve in its intended role it would work just fine. As others have said the only thing outdated is the mag capacity and weigh. Todays alternatives serve the same role better but I would be more than happy if I enlisted and was issued a BAR.

AK103K
August 21, 2006, 04:16 PM
Hey Tiny,
My buddy's BAR is a little bigger than yours :)

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/p4f057ff21e5013ce4b8ad21cf4e3fd56/f9fcc3ce.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/p32c8c09f512d40ce447372f922841101/f9fccbac.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/ped7c0ba016af7204b0994626baa051a2/f9fcc3d1.jpg

tINY
August 21, 2006, 04:23 PM
That would be a fun one without the cut-aways.....

I think I'd want a mount for it, though.




-tINY

dmckean44
August 21, 2006, 09:58 PM
Check out the FN MAG / M240 machine guns. They're the evolution of the BAR into a belt fed machine gun.

Oldphart
August 21, 2006, 10:35 PM
I had the good (?) fortune to carry a BAR. It was heavy but it stayed on target. It was capable of 550 or 600 RPM, but to fire it that way was really uneconomical with respect to ammo. Picture this: One man carrying the rifle and several extra full magazines and a second man carrying twice as many magazines plus his own M1. If either man was disabled, the other would take over the duties of both until a new #2 could be commandeered.
I'm much too old for such stuff now, but if I had to, I'd take a BAR over any of the newer SAWs. Unlike most of the new stuff, the BAR was built to last and to continue to fire until the barrel melted.

Dave R
August 22, 2006, 03:08 PM
The BAR was the only one that could be kept on target throughout a full magazine. Its weight was the key.Just to expand on that, I had heard (sorry, no source available, so disregard as needed) that the BAR was the best full-auto weapon for long-range, precision automatic fire. The weight was part of it. The rifle sights and shooting position were part of it, too. Think about a MG on a tripod and typical MG sights. Not as precise as a shoulder-stocked rifle on a bipod. At long ranges, the BAR gunner could get more rounds on target than traditional MGs.

Of course, for closer-in "hosing", the traditional design wins out.

In "Unintended Consequences", John Ross says the BAR would fire accurately with its barrel heated up to cherry red, like a stove burner. Dunno if its true, just something I read in a book...

If it is true, it 'somewhat' negates the advantage of a quick barrel change.

It would be interesting to hear from any vets who may have used the BAR in combat, in WWII or Korea. Did the BAR see any service in 'Nam?

GeoW
August 22, 2006, 03:30 PM
Would the BAR be a good or effective combat rifle for today? I understand it stood up to recoil far better than it's decendant the M-14 and it's 30.06 round has more power than the .308. It is a high capacity rifle that has more power and a larger caliber than the modern M-16.

Be better than a sling shot or a gatlin gun.

GeoW

Marcus
August 22, 2006, 10:17 PM
A good solid combat weapon will always be effective to some extent. The BAR`s niche would change somewhat if employed today putting it in between a SAW and standard combat infantry rifle. With an emphasis on penetrating hard cover in Iraq and long range hitting power in Afganistan I`d think the ol .30-06 BAR might be able to make a contribution. Since you didn`t mention which version of the BAR my vote goes to a FN Type D variant with lightened reciever,shorter quick change barrel,and pistol grip. I wouldn`t feel poorly armed with one in modern combat. Marcus
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/pk_FND.jpg

STLRN
August 22, 2006, 10:27 PM
Do you understand the "Hard Cover" we have problems with in Iraq stop everything up 50 cal and in some cases are too thick for 50 cal rounds?

Long range shots happen, but they are rare. Not common enough to have some LCpl or PFC waste gallons of sweat having to hump a tool that is needing less than 1 percent of the time. Especially when other weapons can do the same thing in that less than 1 percent of occasions and are more effective the other 99 percent of the time.

Ruger4570
August 22, 2006, 10:34 PM
Having fired a BAR, M-60 and the M-14(full auto) I would say that the BAR was a fine gun, it just wasn't what the M-60 was for many reasons including quick change barrels and belt fed and not limithed to 20 round mags. The M-14 was a fine rifle, but it was near impossible to put more than 2 shots on a target in auto mode, it was too light for full auto and would climb all over, but it too had a 20 round mag as did the BAR. Many advances have taken place in the past several years, but one thing is certain, you don't need a 30-06 against people targets.

TNT
August 23, 2006, 08:56 AM
Now that you mention that Ruger I do believe that the M-60 was the direct replacement for the BAR after the M-14 was short lived on a failed attempt to replace it as well. So now we ask the question the BAR was a portable medium MG. With that in mind, we ask did the BAR create a nich of its own to spawn the M-60 and later the 240G?

tINY
August 23, 2006, 11:36 AM
The 60 and 240 are both General Purpose Machine Guns - like the MG34 and MG42 before them....



-tINY

Ruger4570
August 23, 2006, 09:11 PM
In my opinion and I am sure the flaming will start. I have an old "lend lease" M-1 rifle and it shoots,, well,, ok,, not a tackdriver. Bur I also feel the M-14 was a good replacement as a battle rifle. For the "most" part it was very similar to the M-1. The bolt is similar except the M-14 had a roller on it. The gas system was shortened and always worked fine for me. If I was going into battle tomorrow, and given a choice of an M-1 or an M-14,, it would be the M-14 for sure. Given a choice between the BAR and a M-60,, it would be the M-60. The American military has never had junk weapons, at least not in the 20th century. Even the M-16 has been around for 40 years, although it is only similar to the ones issued early in the 60's as an M-14 replacement.

Marcus
August 23, 2006, 09:57 PM
STLRN, sure "some" hard cover anywhere on earth may stop a .50 BMG. Some may not. Certainly 7.62 NATO or .30-06 will penetrate some hard cover that a 5.56 won`t. If that weren`t so we wouldn`t need the M240,we could just use the M249 for everything in between M16 and M2.
Long range shots in Afganistan and poor stopping power at long ranges were common enough to break thousands of M14s out of mothballs,refurbish them and ship them over there. It would seem the Army and Marines see some merit in my points. I never said the 88 year old BAR would be *ideal* or *superior* to modern choices just that it would still be a viable and deadly weapon on a modern battlefield. Marcus

TNT
August 23, 2006, 10:01 PM
I have heard something of the effect of M-14s going over but I have not been able to make any confirmations you have any links on that?

STLRN
August 24, 2006, 07:59 AM
Marcus

I have been to Iraq multiple times so far, the cover that gives us most problem is the housing construction. The houses often have foot thick masonry/concrete walls, surrounded by similar high wall compounds. I have seen 25mm from a LAV have penetration problems in rare cases. There is a slight need for car penetration capability and in those cases the M240 does well, but I say slight because I have seen allot of dead Iraqis in cars from 5.56 hits alone.

The Marine Corps isn't issuing M14s to FMF units, the only unit that got them were the Battalions of 4th MEB (AT), who has seen limited combat because the nature of "AT" work.

We are issuing the SAM on limited basis to East Coast MEUs. Despite not getting SAMs or DMRs MARFORPAC unit (3rd Marines) have had great success with A4s with ACOGs in Afghanistan. West Coast units has shown similar success with A4s with ACOGs, which may show that that missing had more to do with the "received inadequacies against soft targets" than round being fired.

Additionally the whole needed for the M14 was a perceptional one. Very similar to a desire for 45s because everyone knows a hit to the pinkie will cause the guys hand to be riped off and him to be thrown back 10 feet. As the Army had found out, the need was more perceived need than real, so they are going to M16 based DMRs also.

BlueTrain
August 24, 2006, 01:35 PM
According to my son, now serving in a tank in Tal Afar, there has been made available to the designated marksmen in his unit just about anything they want and that includes M14s, .50-caliber rifles and I think he also said bolt action rifles. Not real sure about the bolt action rifles because we did not discuss operations all that much while he was home on leave earlier this month. However, as I said, he is in a tank platoon and their concept of designated marksman differs slightly from the infantry. In fact, he said they transferred the .50 caliber rifle to another unit because it didn't fit their mission (his words). Nevertheless, the designated marksman idea has taken hold and I think that's a good thing. It also appears that the better shots do gravitate to that position no matter what kind of unit it is. The big difference is in the optics, even though it looks like everyone has some kind of optical sight now.

Now when I was in the army in Europe, the infantry was still using M14A1E2's, and I probably don't have the model number right, but all the infantry units were mechanized, so they may have also had an M-60 as well. At any rate, I did see soldiers at the range with their 'E2's but none were being fired full auto. I wonder if they ever were? Also, for what it's worth, the National Guard still had M1s and BARs into the 1970's. And did you know that some BAR's manufactured during WWII had plastic butts?

There was also a version called the Browning machine rifle M1922 that had cooling fins like a Hotchkiss (not to be confused with the Browning M1922 pistol). It was produced for the cavalry who had their own variation of some equipments. They even had an armored vehicle called a combat car.

Marcus
August 24, 2006, 10:47 PM
STLRN,with all due respect. I have 2 very good friends who have been in combat in Iraq. One just returned a couple months ago. Their input only reinforced my opinions. So who`s right,them or you? Frankly who cares? No one is actually saying we should arm the US military with 80 year old BARs. This thread is for fun and a little creative conversation. If you wanna argue that a BAR won`t penetrate hard cover any better or hit any harder at long range than 5.56 knock yourself out. :) Marcus

STLRN
August 24, 2006, 10:53 PM
Just Google some images of Iraqi houses and you see what I mean, the houses are made of extremely thick adobe style or concrete construction. This is done to act as an insulator and for defensibility purposes.

Don't know where your two friends were fighting, I know from what I saw during OIF I, III and V that most of the country had very similar the construction. The only place I really never sat was the Kurdish region

Ruger4570
August 24, 2006, 11:08 PM
All things being equal,, the 5.56 will not equal a 7.62. in range, pennetration or stopping power. It is a great woodchuck round. The Marines have the right idea, one man, one bullet, one kill. If you haven't been there and done it, stop BS'ing and spouting your thoughts based on your opinion... because,, you just don't know and shouldn't be expressing a view based on your reading of some gun magazines. Get into it,, join the forces, see it for yourself, otherwise, quit the armchair discussion of things you know nothing about. Sorry. some things just P--s me off.

joshua
August 24, 2006, 11:51 PM
Any gun that spits out bullets to an effective velocity is good for combat any day. Now the BAR was not meant to be used to clear houses, even though back in it's conception it was far better than the M1 Garand for the purpose mentioned. If you can get a BAR that will shoot moa, higher capacity mags and find a scope mount to have an ACOG or Leupold on top of it you may just have a nice weapon for modern combat in the designated marksman or wide perimeter security purposes. I thing the AR-10/SR-25 would be better suited for the purpose. josh

TNT
August 25, 2006, 10:58 AM
Actually all this talk of bigger mag got me thinking if they did go with a bigger mag it would ineffective for close fire support as it was designed for. the longer mag would have hindered it when in a fixed fighting postion or in the prone position. the 20rd mag is almost perfect for that application

Doug.38PR
August 25, 2006, 11:02 AM
Marcus,
your photo has a pistol grip BAR. I didn't know they made those...or is that a little custom work of your own? Personally, I prefer rifle grip rifles...but pistol grip will work too.

Interesting, at this moment I have AMC on the movie the Sand Pebble and am watching Steve McQueen use the BAR....it kinda saves the day in the end of the movie if I remember right. Fixin to have to walk out the door so I will have to miss it :( Wish this movie would come out on DVD :mad:

SOG/MACV
August 25, 2006, 11:12 AM
I don't normally get into these types of discussions, for personal reasons, however I will say that the M-60 saved our team on more than one occasion. I concede that the circumstances that I encountered are entirely different than what the "boots on the ground" are facing in todays conflicts. The M-60 did damage that can't be fathomed unless you were there to see it.

Doug.38PR
August 25, 2006, 11:33 AM
A thought: Lighter doesn't necessarily mean better. Weight cuts down on recoil.

BlueTrain
August 25, 2006, 12:10 PM
The pistol grip BAR's were used by armies overseas, including the Poles and the Swedes, in 7.92 and 6.5 respectively. Colt made some and I believe the rest were manufactured overseas. Some were made with quick-change barrels.

After thinking about this for a couple of days, it occurs to me that the BAR would have to still be a good choice if the rifles in use were the same caliber. At least I think it would be as good as a heavy-barrel FAL such as was used by Canada and by Israeli. Those were different models and I have only examined an Israeli made version. There is a weight difference and a length difference but I wouldn't consider it significant. The FAL is anything but short and the heavy barrel model is surprisingly heavy. I realize there are 30 round magazines for the FAL and that is a real difference but easy enough to fix.

On the other hand, it has been years since the heavy barrel FAL has been used by either of those armies. There have been heavy barrel HK automatic rifles but I don't know who used them and I don't recall mention of them in this forum, at least not recently.

roscoe
August 25, 2006, 04:51 PM
Wish this movie would come out on DVD
I rented it on Netflix