Author Topic: Browning Automatic Rifle (Read 2637 times)

Golfer · « **Reply #30 on:** September 14, 2003, 03:18:58 PM »

Flakbait said this:

Quote

You're missing a few things about the BAR. First off, the fore-end was made from wood and perilously close to the barrel. Too much automatic fire would cause the fore-end to start smoking, and possibly burst into flames.

And that's stupid. Carry on.

Fishu · « **Reply #31 on:** September 14, 2003, 03:37:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
I thought the Mg34/42 were comparable to the American Browning machinegun, not to the BAR.
The BAR being basically a big rifle operated by a single person that could be used on the move, and the MG42 a machinegun that had to be deployed to be used effectively.

American M1919 models and M1917 were quite much heavier than MG34/42 and were only belt fed
Of the M1919 models, A6 was suppose to be faster to deploy and expose the operators less, however it was unable to maintain sustained fire as the A4 and wasn't either any lighter.
A4 was far more numerous than A6.

MG42 is pretty much still in active use today - the german army uses MG3, which is almost the same as MG42, except chambered for different caliber and some minor details changed.
To my knowledge MG3 is used the same way as M60 and M249, which could be said to be the todays BAR/Bren.

I'd say MG34/42 were amazingly adaptable machineguns.
Germans used those in various kind of platforms and actions.

MG34/42 werent the only squad machineguns used by the germans, they did also have a fair number of Zb.26's, which is the Czech version of Bren, or actually, the weapon which of Bren originated.

-Concho- · « **Reply #32 on:** September 14, 2003, 06:18:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, fully equipped, a BAR weighs 40 pounds.

I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?

LOL I remember leaving my toothbrush out of my pack because it was too heavy.

Mathman · « **Reply #33 on:** September 14, 2003, 07:16:03 PM »

Ok, let's set up a BAR scenario that you can understand:

Our hero, up on a hill is provided with an excellent field of fire and a BAR. He sees some approaching Germans and starts to shoot them. He is firing in short bursts and conserving his ammo. The Nazis are dropping like flies. There is one group of Krauts left for the hero to kill. They are firing an MG 34. The BAR runs out of ammo and the Nazis are so hungry for the kill, they shoot the BAR gunner even though he has run out of ammo and hasn't had a chance to pop in a new magazine.

Damn Nazis, they would kill each other just to club a baby seal.

Scootter · « **Reply #34 on:** September 14, 2003, 07:28:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mathman
Ok, let's set up a BAR scenario that you can understand:

Our hero, up on a hill is provided with an excellent field of fire and a BAR. He sees some approaching Germans and starts to shoot them. He is firing in short bursts and conserving his ammo. The Nazis are dropping like flies. There is one group of Krauts left for the hero to kill. They are firing an MG 34. The BAR runs out of ammo and the Nazis are so hungry for the kill, they shoot the BAR gunner even though he has run out of ammo and hasn't had a chance to pop in a new magazine.

Damn Nazis, they would kill each other just to club a baby seal.

you said the enamy is approaching, kill them before they set up the MG 34, the BAR is not belt fead and can fire on the run.

It is and was out of date but provided a very moble yet small clip auto weapon , moble was the key here we were advancing they were defending. As a MG it was not to be used as such, the Browning .30 aircooled was the counter to the MG 34. The MG 34 and its brother were a better MG IMHO.

The BAR was not really used much after WWII for all the reasons stated on other posts.

Not bad just not great as a MG, better as a fast long range auto weapon.

one mans opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Mathman · « **Reply #35 on:** September 14, 2003, 08:10:25 PM »

Damn, you got me there. I have no idea what I was talking about. Or, maybe, I do and people here just don't pick up on subtle references. I guess the guys in my squad were correct about that.

Dune · « **Reply #36 on:** September 14, 2003, 10:31:03 PM »

The 1919, otherwise known as the Browning thirtycal was the air-cooled version of the 1917. Same action, just replaced the water jacket with a heavier barrel and a shroud. The 1919 was designed to be used with a tripod, however, towards the end of the war the 1919A6 also came with a detachable buttstock and a bipod so it could be used prone. There was also a move to switch from cloth belts to metal links.

1917

1919

1919A6

Many of the design attributes of the MG42 also found their way into the M60.

BTW, here is part of a great article discussing the BAR:

Quote

Battle-Proven BAR
Even in its final M1918A2 configuration, the highly regarded BAR was less than perfect. The location of its bottom-fed magazine limited capacity and 20 rounds is just not enough for a squad automatic. None of the models fielded by the U.S. Armed Forces had quick-change barrels. Melvin M. Johnson, Jr., designer of the Johnson M1941 semiautomatic rifle and Models 1941 and 1944 Light Machine Guns, stated that a BAR barrel could withstand 75 to 100 rounds per minute for up to 300-400 rounds without serious damage to the barrel. In one test the barrel was ruined after 1,000 rounds of firing at this rate.

Semiautomatic accuracy was degraded by the open-bolt firing mechanism which caused the reciprocating group to slam against the rear of the barrel to jar the weapon at the moment of primer ignition. In juxtaposition, full-auto fire off the bipod was almost too accurate. At the standard 1,000-inch machine-gun target, the M1918A2 BAR could place one full 20- round burst into a 2x3-inch rectangle.

This is a direct consequence of the bipod's location at the muzzle. Group dispersion of this size is superior to that of the M1917A1 water-cooled Browning machine gun mounted on its tripod. As a result, at combat ranges of 200 to 600 yards the M1918A2 BAR almost comes close to lacking a useful distribution of fire. In addition, with the bipod attached to the muzzle, it becomes more difficult for the operator to engage flanking targets. At almost 20 pounds the M1918A2 BAR is too heavy for anything other than snap shooting from a standing shoulder mount.

From here: http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/articles/14.htm

Fishu · « **Reply #37 on:** September 15, 2003, 05:07:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scootter
you said the enamy is approaching, kill them before they set up the MG 34, the BAR is not belt fead and can fire on the run.

You can have 75 round drum and 50 round 'assault belt' on the MG34.
The setup time becomes next to none.

Dowding · « **Reply #38 on:** September 15, 2003, 05:31:05 AM »

Quote

the Thomson - best SMG in the war combined...

I thought the Russians had the best SMG of the war - that saw-tooth thing with the large magazine (67 rounds?). No other army used SMGs in numbers like the Soviets did.

Fishu · « **Reply #39 on:** September 15, 2003, 05:38:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
I thought the Russians had the best SMG of the war - that saw-tooth thing with the large magazine (67 rounds?). No other army used SMGs in numbers like the Soviets did.

I know for a fact that the tommy gun was not the best SMG..

Bias or not, but I'd say the Suomi SMG was the best

PPSh 41 was a spray gun compared to it...

Scootter · « **Reply #40 on:** September 15, 2003, 06:42:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
You can have 75 round drum and 50 round 'assault belt' on the MG34.
The setup time becomes next to none.

Good point, how widespread was the us of drum? I had forgotten about this item as I dont see it that oftem in photos.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 15, 2003, 06:59:55 AM »

Jeeze mathman, your joke was so horrible that I actually feel sorry for you

Oh, and the BAR was used up until the end of the Vietnam war. South Vietnam was the last country to use it I believe. It was most likely used as an individual rifle and not a machine gun at that time.

Fishu · « **Reply #42 on:** September 15, 2003, 07:25:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scootter
Good point, how widespread was the us of drum? I had forgotten about this item as I dont see it that oftem in photos.

I don't know any numbers, but from what I've read along the years, the drums existed in fair numbers.
Probably wouldn't be either too much of a trouble to run around with 50 round belt either.... not sure if its a normal 50 round belt (germans had 50 round belts which could be linked together) or some specifially modified for assaulting.

Heres a picture of MG34 with the drum:

Let's add the picture of Zb.26 as well:

These pics are from http://www.lssah.com , they have some nice single pictures of weapons and other equiptment.
along with some pictures of restorated vehicles

davidpt40 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 15, 2003, 08:09:24 AM »

Hey fishu, why did the slow the ROF on the MG42 from 1200rpm to 600rpm on the MG3?

Also, does anyone here remember an AH BBS member who was a squad leader in the U.S. Army during the 80s? I bet he could shed some insight on my BAR question.

Fishu · « **Reply #44 on:** September 15, 2003, 08:13:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
Hey fishu, why did the slow the ROF on the MG42 from 1200rpm to 600rpm on the MG3?

Also, does anyone here remember an AH BBS member who was a squad leader in the U.S. Army during the 80s? I bet he could shed some insight on my BAR question.

To my knowledge MG3 does have 1200rpm cyclic rate and nowhere have I seen mention about 600rpm.
Where'd you find those claims?