Would the BAR be a good combat rifle for today?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Stlrn

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
BarM1918VWM.jpg
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top