Would the BAR be a good combat rifle for today?

[Marcus]

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

[STLRN]

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]

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]

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]

The 60 and 240 are both General Purpose Machine Guns - like the MG34 and MG42 before them....



-tINY

[Ruger4570]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[SOG/MACV]

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]

A thought: Lighter doesn't necessarily mean better. Weight cuts down on recoil.

[BlueTrain]

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]

Wish this movie would come out on DVD

I rented it on Netflix