Would the BAR be a good combat rifle for today?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Hey Tiny,
My buddy's BAR is a little bigger than yours :)

f9fcc3ce.jpg


f9fccbac.jpg


f9fcc3d1.jpg
 


That would be a fun one without the cut-aways.....

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




-tINY

 
Last edited:
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.
 
The BAR was the only one that could be kept on target throughout a full magazine. Its weight was the key.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Be better than a sling shot or a gatlin gun.

GeoW
 
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
pk_FND.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top