Wow, History Channel?

Books have plenty of faults as well. See Michael A. Bellesiles' book Arming America. Just because it is in a book does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I prefaced it with "Research, and double check everything for yourself."

Also, to the OP. Not sure of the context of the comment, but the MP44 is lightweight compared to the BAR of other fully-automatic rifles of the era, such as the FG42 or Bren.
As far as my understanding the weak point of the BAR was the magazine. I've read several accounts which stated that the GIs rarely loaded more than 17-18 rounds in them due to weak springs after alot of use.
 
I'm surprised by the number of comments here, but have really enjoyed reading all of them. My original post was right after a history?channel show.

The mp44 was 11.5 pounds, that is NOT lightweight.
I don't consider 11.5 pounds lightweight for anything that has to be dragged around all day. It's not light. But that is what they said.

In a side by side comparison, they were shooting the BAR along with the MP 44 to show which one was the more accurate. But they were shooting the BAR unsupported by the bipod, firing full auto in a standing position. This ISN'T what the BAR was designed to do. While it was done that way, it wasn't designed to be used that way. It's NOT an assault rifle. Again, "fake" history. And surprise, surprise they shot the thing high. Didn't see that coming. :p

They fired the mp44 and kept more of them in the target.
Well DUH there bro. of course you did. That's because that's what it WAS designed for. So, in this segment the Germans were better armed because all of them had mp44's so I guess that meant that everybody else had BAR's ONLY. Another strange statement that is totally untrue.

They didn't compare the K-98 to the Garand, which is what MOST everyone was fighting with in the Battle of the Bulge. Just picked on the BAR for some strange reason and called it history.

That silliness, along with the statment that the BAR was disliked by American troops. I can't find that written anywhere, nor can I find it said by anyone who fought with it. But, that is what they said.
I can find written, and I know personally a number of men who fought with the BAR and loved it. They talk about how heavy it is, but still loved it.

Kooky History show is what I was commenting about here.
Didn't know it would take on a life of it's own, but cool anyway.
 
On the Military Channel's "Top 10 Rifles", according their graphic the range of '03 Spingfield? 600 yards.:rolleyes:
For the most part these shows aren't bad...and can be pretty accurate. But some do help to foster some misinformation and unproven stories that even some firearm folks believe. The 'ping' of the Garand clip getting soliders killed...never been proven. Or my favorite...the heavy cotton uniforms of the Chinese troops in Korea stopped 30 carbine rounds. That must be some really thick cotton. Even people who should know better, like William Atwater director of the ordinance museum in Aberdeen repeats that one along with countless forum posts.
 
Thanks for the great answer.

Quote:
Didn't the BAR have kind of a small capacity mag for full auto?
Yes, but small capacity is one way of compromising for a magazine that was mounted under the gun. Any longer, and it would contact the ground.

Note the Bren gun, with a magazine that was on top of (and slightly left of center), the action. It held more than twenty rounds but stuck up like a sore thumb.

Then consider the Lewis gun. It had a large, round drum magazine that sat atop of the gun and likely was a pain to advance and carry the gun.

Then there was the French Chow-Chow (not sure of the spelling), the had a curved bottom magazine with a higher round count than the BAR, but had an open slot that was subject to debris.

The Browning .30 air cooled used belted ammo which required at least a two-man crew and was not very handy if picked-up from the tripod and fired (although it was done by John Basilone et.Al.)

Thus, the BAR compromised with a closed, twenty-round bottom magazine that enabled it to be used as a light machine gun instead of a crew-served heavy. Also, being a light machine gun, it did not need to be knocked-down and set-up before being used...it could advance and be fired by a single soldier, standing or prone, instantly. All of this was better served by its smaller twenty round magazines.
__________________
Click to expand...
 
Funny Josey that you mentioned that the BAR is a light machine gun as the MP44 is a assault rifle the comparison they make are apple to oranges. No relevance to the immediate question at hand.
 
Hey guys, you all are forgetting that television is only a lamp that talks. It’s not necessarily informative or factual, it just keeps you company in the dark.
 
More useless reality shows

Stoarge wars, parking wars, people that hoard crap.

I do enjoy a good segment of COPS. See my relatives occasionally...:D
 
Thanks, TNT. If I'm ever headed that way...

We did the hand-held firing of an air-cooled Browning LMG in Basic, also. Wrapped a bunch of cloth belt around the barrel. Hip-held. "Fire a burst of six."

We were standing on gravelly soil, feet in what's now called the Weaver Stance position. Recoil would jiggle you back about six inches per burst.

Sorta like holding the butt stock of a Thompson between your bicep and ribs: Surprisingly easy to control your hits, given a bit of thought before pulling trigger.
 
The History Channel is more entertainment than a source of factual information and you really don't have to watch it for very long before something makes you think to yourself "Hey! That's not true!"

For example, they did that documentary on the Japanese guns of WWII, looking at the premise that a major cause of Japanese defeat were their inferior small arms. They did a lengthy segment on how dangerous that Type 94 pistol was, on account of the exposed trigger bar, which if pressed could fire the pistol all without actually pulling the trigger. I suppose that is unsafe, but given that these pistols were carried holsters and with the safety on, it's highly unlikely that many (or even a few) deaths or injuries resulted from inadvertent discharges. Crappy gun, sure, but it didn't cost the Japanese any battles and probably didn't cost them any individual lives either.

I guess in light of their heavy focus on the paranormal, UFO's, etc... minor issues like the translation of "Sturmgewehr" or calling that weapon "light" are pretty minor offenses.

It's actually not uncommon to translate something to better approximate what it means rather than to directly translate. Just like the term the Russians use for assault rifle, "avtomat" (this is the "A" in "AK"), "avtomat" is often translated as "assault rifle" but obviously means neither assault nor rifle, and only denotes something that is mechanical and automatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top