>20 round magazine

>20 round magazine

so what fricking use is this piece of shit?
were people back in the day just moronic?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A 20 round detachable magazine in a select fire rifle is a Godsend when everyone else is running 5 round bolt guns. The 1918a2 is a product of moronation though

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Google it you fricking moron

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    in the year 2104:
    >200 round magazine
    >so what fricking use is this piece of shit?
    >were people back in the day just moronic?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      pretty much, we are just seeing the glimpses of the future today. dual 180's. this is 500 rounds of .22 at 2800 rpm

      find a single fricking better home defense weapon then this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's an argument to be made that #4 buckshot is ideal. You'd get as many hits as that thing does in 1/2 second on the first shot. Dealing with one attacker, you're doing a massive amount of damage in as short a time as possible, which is ideal.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >20 round detachable magazine
    >fully semiautomatic fire capable
    >in the year 1899+19
    It was ahead of its time, but I won't expect terminally moronic smoothbrain like yourself to understand this information

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What's the matter, they couldn't count to 30 back then?
      How is that ahead of their time?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Something as simple as spring technology. Or rather, the metallurgy science to make a reliable magazine spring for more than 20 cartridges. Once that was in place, gun design changed worldwide.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This board is almost slid as hard as /misc/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      frick you, there are 5 firearms threads in the top 15 right now, it's a slow day for war

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wot are you talking about?
      pol was never any good

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The slide threads usually end up better than whatever they're trying to slide, tbh

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Sir, they started posting weapons again
      >notify the cord immediately, we need 6 more Ukraine threads pronto

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    had to be short because muh prone

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >20 rounds rather than 5 rounds.
    >Semi-auto rather than bolt action.
    >Detachable magazine rather than a fixed internal magazine.
    The gun was META in the early 20th century.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >20 round detachable magazine
      >fully semiautomatic fire capable
      >in the year 1899+19
      It was ahead of its time, but I won't expect terminally moronic smoothbrain like yourself to understand this information

      A 20 round detachable magazine in a select fire rifle is a Godsend when everyone else is running 5 round bolt guns. The 1918a2 is a product of moronation though

      Let's compare that to:
      Lewis gun - 47 rds
      Madsen gun - 25, 30 and 40 rds
      German light machine guns like MG 08/15 and Bergmann MG15 - 200 rds in a belt
      MP-18 SMG - 32 rd

      What's the point of select fire if that's not a goodamn infantry rifle for everyman?
      Anyway, if we evaluate BAR by the qualities of LMG or SAW, it's handier than most of other LMGs of the time, but is it better as an LMG? Probably not.

      had to be short because muh prone

      Could have added top-feed magazine, like ZB 26.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Lewis gun - 47 rds
        Twice the weight.
        >Madsen gun - 25, 30 and 40 rds
        Roughly same size, but more awkward.
        >German light machine guns like MG 08/15 and Bergmann MG15 - 200 rds in a belt
        Twice the weight.
        >MP-18 SMG - 32 rd
        Not a rifle cartridge.
        KYS moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anon... You can't be this moronic... Surely?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No anon, YOU can't be this moronic. The only factor you're willing to take into account is ammunition capacity. You're not thinking about how much more portable the BAR is than all the other shit you mentioned (besides the MP18).

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >You're not thinking about how much more portable the BAR is than all the other shit

              [...]
              [...]
              Let's compare that to:
              Lewis gun - 47 rds
              Madsen gun - 25, 30 and 40 rds
              German light machine guns like MG 08/15 and Bergmann MG15 - 200 rds in a belt
              MP-18 SMG - 32 rd

              What's the point of select fire if that's not a goodamn infantry rifle for everyman?
              Anyway, if we evaluate BAR by the qualities of LMG or SAW, it's handier than most of other LMGs of the time, but is it better as an LMG? Probably not.
              [...]
              Could have added top-feed magazine, like ZB 26.

              >Anyway, if we evaluate BAR by the qualities of LMG or SAW, it's handier than most of other LMGs of the time

              READ homie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then you answered your own question? I don't know what you're arguing anymore you fricking stupid, dumb, moronic Black person.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Let's go over the thread.
                You brought up ammunition capacity when you made this thread, saying that the BAR is bad because of it lacks in that field. Other anons rightfully called you moronic.
                You retort by bringing up the capacity of other guns of the era. You give passing mention to the BAR being handier than the other weapons you mentioned. You then say, like a moron, that it's still a bad LMG.
                From there, I grace your shitty thread with my presence. I compare the weights of the LMGs that you seem to hold above the BAR and find them lacking in comparison to it.
                You obviously take issue with me deigning to explain this shit to you, but by now you have realized how stupid you are so now you pretend that you were saying what I was saying from the beginning.
                At this point, your best course would be to just leave your shitty thread to its fate, but I know you won't because you're seething too hard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >when you made this thread
                Except I haven't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Of course you haven't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So stop b***hin Black person and spare me the wordcount

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              moron chama... The BAR was so heavier than the Madison and the Lewis.

              Is dying for Israel your only identity?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Lewis gun: 28lbs
                >Madsen gun: 20lbs
                >M1918 BAR: 16lbs
                Why lie?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Huh I coulda sworn the Madsen was lighter thanks for spoon feeding me

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >merely pretending to be moronic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Of those listed all except 2 are crew served, it wasn't meant to replace emplaced guns and it served a different role than the mp-18 and was less expensive than a Madsen. Having a top fed magazine makes no sense when you consider it's original, admittedly moronic, doctrine of use

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Of those listed all except 2 are crew served,
          uwu

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The assistant gunner just carried extra mags and the bipod if it wasn't being used. They were also never without at least one 1919 covering them which people always forget exist in BAR threads.

            This was also early war. By the end of the war there'd be another BAR and a few Thompsons/Grease Guns and Carbines mixed in.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The assistant gunner just carried extra mags and the bipod if it wasn't being used.
              Point it is still crew served weapon. And Madsen LMG was much between mag fed LMG, due to top magazine location assistance gunner could change magazines fast with gunner not losing pointing at the target area, overall interruption in fire was much smaller for Madsen. And it has larger magazines, again top magazine location helps here to feed heavier rounds upside down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Point it is still crew served weapon

                If you want to narrow it down to the tiniest semantic argument while ignoring that it was leaps and bounds more maneuverable and more useful than every single one its contemporaries.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Infantry squad had 7 rifleman for maneuverability.
                But as base of fire BAR certainly sucked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It was a crew served that could very easily be run by one guy off his web gear. By the same metric the weird offset mags of the Madsen do not lend themselves well to that scenario.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The assistant gunner and gunner had to switch who had to carry the PoS

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The assistant gunner just carried extra mags and the bipod if it wasn't being used.
              Point it is still crew served weapon. And Madsen LMG was much between mag fed LMG, due to top magazine location assistance gunner could change magazines fast with gunner not losing pointing at the target area, overall interruption in fire was much smaller for Madsen. And it has larger magazines, again top magazine location helps here to feed heavier rounds upside down.

              Plus it’s a second guy in the squad who’s trained how to use the machine gun in case the first one gets murked.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How many of those could a single person fire from the shoulder

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The favela police do it with the Madsen.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You can just say that you get your entire understanding of guns from playing call of battlefield

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And you can't admit that BAR is a crappy alternative to proper squad machine guns fired from the bipod, as intended by God and sensible people in charge of the armies of the world.

          >Lewis gun - 47 rds
          and uses top-loading pan mag

          >Madsen gun - 25, 30 and 40 rds
          also a top loading gun

          the BAR was designed to be fired like a rifle, so top loading mags were out of the question
          top loaders work fine if you plan on firing prone the whole time, but the offset sight and high center of balance affects aim
          30rnd mags in .30cal were unwieldy and unreliable and 40rnd mags made it impossible to fire from prone at all
          , so 20rnd mags were the best they could do at the time

          >BAR was designed to be fired like a rifle, so top loading mags were out of the question
          I struggle to see the connection.
          >but the offset sight and high center of balance affects aim
          That's a machine gun, not a precision rifle, your task is to provide suppression fire with it.
          Not to mention that certain top fed machine guns had normal sights, like Lewis or DP-27

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's a machine gun, not a precision rifle, your task is to provide suppression fire with it.
            and they wanted it to be fired like a rifle
            they wanted it to provide suppressing fire with decent accuracy from the shoulder rather than requiring a bipod or tripod
            the bipod it did have was often removed to facilitate this

            >Not to mention that certain top fed machine guns had normal sights, like Lewis or DP-27
            both of them are heavier than the BAR, their pan mags were unreliable compared to stick mags, and they still werent that great at shoulder fire anyways

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, you really are a moron, this is a gun made in 1918, others already pointed out why the alternatives didn't outcompete it at the time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >proper squad machine guns fired from the bipod
            AKTUALLY proper machine guns are fired from a tripod with their own team manning it. Comparing the BAR to a GPMG is comparing apples to oranges. Its a totally different gun.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              the MG42 was used in bipod-mode for squads and tripod-mode in weapon sections
              as a GPMG it was made to replace all machine guns

              though in a twist of irony, modern US squads get M249s for bipod/shoulder fire
              while weapons sections get the M240B, intended to be fired from tripod
              attempts to use the M240 in bipod mode was short-lived, it was less handy than the M60 in that role

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >attempts to use the M240 in bipod mode was short-lived, it was less handy than the M60 in that role
                Lmao two goes in Afghanistan and I never once used my 240B with a tripod, where the frick are you getting the idea that the B (and L) aren't used and doctrinally trained to be used with bipods?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Actual autistic person.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Lewis gun - 47 rds
        and uses top-loading pan mag

        >Madsen gun - 25, 30 and 40 rds
        also a top loading gun

        the BAR was designed to be fired like a rifle, so top loading mags were out of the question
        top loaders work fine if you plan on firing prone the whole time, but the offset sight and high center of balance affects aim
        30rnd mags in .30cal were unwieldy and unreliable and 40rnd mags made it impossible to fire from prone at all
        , so 20rnd mags were the best they could do at the time

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bullshit you moron, top mags are superior in every way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you dont like good sights.
            It is 30-06 and can shoot flat and far.
            You dont always do some moronic walking fire or hip fire just because some military trainer from the last century envisioned you using it that way.
            Firing accurately, especialy from prone, is best done with sights on top centered over the barrel.

            This is a detachable mag battle rifle that was very reliable.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >centered over the barrel.
              Doesn't make a difference. Before picatinny and optics top mounted mag was superior in every way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >G3 no rails - no top feed magazine
                >FAL no rails no top feed magazine
                >M14 no rails no top feed magazine
                >FAMAS no rails no top feed magazine
                >MAS49 no rails no top feed magazine
                ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Belt fed machineguns are more difficult to fire withouth a bipop compared to box mag fed guns
        Weird balance.
        And the assistant gunner has a more difficult time helping you reload outside of a mounted position.
        BUTTT you get 50-100, 200 rnds in belts which are convinient to carry in large amounts.
        But the ammo is somewhat exposed and you could get shit in it more easily.
        A mag seals 1 point of entry at least

        Box magazines can be reloaded faster and compared to dinnerplate/drum mags, are easyer to fit on your kit, compared to belts, box mags are a lil worse in terms of storage.

        Almost as if the BAR gunner was meant to relocate more often, like in an assault.
        Also
        Americ**ts had their own beltfed 30 cal, it wasnt great but it was no piece of shit either.

        Bottom feed mags do not need an offset
        But interfiers with prone firing if too big, hence 20 rnds only

        To my mind bren is a lil bit better ,
        Open bolt guns arent known for their accuracy so the offset probably is not that big of an issue

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          why such a small auntie BAR? You should post larger BARs!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pardon me good sir.
            I offer this gift as a way to make ammends.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Americ**ts had their own beltfed 30 cal
          (nods) The M1904 Maxim.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >MG 08/15
        >light machine gun
        LMAOOOOO

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's only 40 pounds (unloaded). Don't be a pussy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's also impossible to shoot while on the move with dumbass and a monster to maneuver within a trench. It's why the BAR is better than the Lewis gun, while you could fire a Lewis gun while walking fire with the assistance of a sling was possible, but you couldn't aim with it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Semi-auto
      >1918 BAR
      No guns moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The M1918 was capable of semi-automatic fire, yes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I must commit sudoku.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        are you fricking stupid?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was designed with the armchair tactic of "walking fire" in mind. They envisioned a bunch of guys marching across the front firing from the hip, Rambo-style, no joke. They realized that was suicidal by the time it actually hit the field, of course.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Walking fire was still an effective tactic in 1945.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        was still a tactic*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't forget the cup on the ammo belt for hip-firing.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A 20 round stick magazine in 1918 was a pretty good thing.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Oh I'm sure the powers at be are terrified of what a handful of internet autists think about [insert current weapons platform here], not everything is a government plot you slack jawed moron

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Stock photo
    Should he have used a picture of his own BAR?
    >Irrelevant time wasting thread
    That's half the threads on this board
    >Actual weapons threads about western tanks blowing up constantly deleted
    Oh no what will we do without 500 consecutive threads screeching about Ukraine
    >ESL response
    moron
    >Post guns
    K

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its good to contextualize that this was the alternative option.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't the Chauchat fixable?
      Though it also only had 20 rounds.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think the .30-06 chauchats were ever regarded as good. The 7.5 ones were okay though.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The .30-06 Chauchat were a redesigned model specifically for the American expeditionary forces, and had both design issues and the misfortune of being built in a brand new French factory with wartime quality materials, workers and standards. They built some guns from 1917 but never managed to correct the severe quality issues. By 1918 USA was already in the process of phasing them out as soon as they could get BARs delivered.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >No one cares about old shit like the BAR that has been yapped about forever a thousand times.
    This isn't your board.
    When the war is over, you'll leave and go leave or reddit or wherever it is you came from and we'll still be here yapping about the BAR and all the other old shit a thousand times more.
    KYS

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >5 men with M1 Garand rifle are getting off 80 aimed shots per minute
    >this man coming up with the BAR can also fire 80 shots a minute
    >now the five riflemen are free to manurer to the flank while the BAR provides suppressive fire

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw you’ll never be able afford a BAR and larp as Bonnie and Clyde with your hot girlfriend
    Why live?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw when no 4' 11", 90 lbs. gf providing covering fire with an M1918 BAR stolen from a National Guard armory.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    want

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    need

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the chinks sure hated it!

    the reply of a Korea vet BARman when i presented him with the same question

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Black person, that's the original assault rifle.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God, that's such a good looking gun

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >ywn walk into a store, buy this, and walk out with it
      Why fricking live?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The B.A.R. was pretty good for a first generation automatic rifle introduced in 1918. No surprise that it was obsolete by 1941, but many things from WW1 were by that point.

      The controversy isn't that they used it in WW2, the controversy is that the U.S. Army was too cheap to convert them over to the far superior Colt Monitor configuration.

      Could this have, realistically, worked as a standard service rifle of any army prior and during the second world war?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If the BAR was lighter, locked into semi auto only, and had still slightly better yet ergonomics (longer pistol grip with vertical front grip instead of thick forend), then yes I absolutely think it would have been a fine service rifle in and of itself and an acceptable precursor to guns that would eventually come along like the FAL. I suspect that the production cost of the BAR and the fact that the cemented mindset of "this is our light machine gun and nothing more" among the Army Ordnance people prevented that from happening though, thus the M1 Garand became a thing.

        Colt and FN seemed to think that the BAR could be it's own stand alone thing though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If the BAR was lighter, locked into semi auto only, and had still slightly better yet ergonomics (longer pistol grip with vertical front grip instead of thick forend), then yes I absolutely think it would have been a fine service rifle in and of itself and an acceptable precursor to guns that would eventually come along like the FAL. I suspect that the production cost of the BAR and the fact that the cemented mindset of "this is our light machine gun and nothing more" among the Army Ordnance people prevented that from happening though, thus the M1 Garand became a thing.

        Colt and FN seemed to think that the BAR could be it's own stand alone thing though.

        Adopting the BAR as a service rifle would have also required it to be modified to accept

        -bayonets
        -rifle grenades
        -optics

        Which would have impeded on its ability to be used as a machine significantly.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *machine gun

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If the BAR was lighter, locked into semi auto only, and had still slightly better yet ergonomics (longer pistol grip with vertical front grip instead of thick forend), then yes I absolutely think it would have been a fine service rifle in and of itself and an acceptable precursor to guns that would eventually come along like the FAL. I suspect that the production cost of the BAR and the fact that the cemented mindset of "this is our light machine gun and nothing more" among the Army Ordnance people prevented that from happening though, thus the M1 Garand became a thing.

        Colt and FN seemed to think that the BAR could be it's own stand alone thing though.

        https://i.imgur.com/JV6shiU.jpg

        [...]

        Adopting the BAR as a service rifle would have also required it to be modified to accept

        -bayonets
        -rifle grenades
        -optics

        Which would have impeded on its ability to be used as a machine significantly.

        Are we asking for some kinda intermediate cartridge version of the HCAR?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh neat.

          $6500+

          Oh.
          They would need half that price to have any chance of selling more than small quantities.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's the sad part. It's always overpriced as hell.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I think there's a market for a reproduction of a iconic historical weapon except made of polymer and with a bunch of tacticool shit on it
          Statement dreamt up by the utterly deranged

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        16 lbs. unloaded is a hard sell for a service rifle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This would have been the standard issue for WWIII had II grown into it in the '50's.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >price tag
        >weight
        >magazines GIs could lose
        They weren't ready for it yet.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What was the average man-portable firearm's magazine or clip at that time? And fully automatic too?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What was the average man-portable firearm's magazine or clip at that time
      5 rounds - vanilla Mauser, Mosin, M1903, austrian Mannlicher rifles. Some had more, like Lee Enfield or Carcano, some had less like Berthier

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was really advanced when it came out for limited use in WW1

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One shot one kill.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It fit the gap between a 5-round bolt action rifle and a static, water-cooled and belt-fed heavy machine gun. in terms of portability and firepower. Remember that LMG (neither belt- nor magazine-fed), SMG or assault rifle did not yet exist as an option.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The B.A.R. was pretty good for a first generation automatic rifle introduced in 1918. No surprise that it was obsolete by 1941, but many things from WW1 were by that point.

    The controversy isn't that they used it in WW2, the controversy is that the U.S. Army was too cheap to convert them over to the far superior Colt Monitor configuration.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Clyde Barrow's of bonnie and clyde infamy main weapon.
      Also the weapon used by the guy that tracked them down and killed them. In addition to all the other firearms shooting at the car at the same time.
      They waited in ambush down the road from a known family members home, and knowing it was a wanted cop killer that would fight back they just all mag dumped into the vehicle before bonnie or clyde knew they were there.

      Most gangsters of the time obtained thier big weapons from raiding police and national guard armories.
      So the NFA would have no impact on them, but it wasnt meant to.

      [...]
      Could this have, realistically, worked as a standard service rifle of any army prior and during the second world war?

      Yes. But people didnt realize how obsolete prior weapons were until ww2 demonstrated it, and by then the assault rifle concept had arrived, and the garand was already in the battle rifle role.
      But many still went battle rifle anyways, which is how we got m14, G3, FAL etc
      The 1918 already had a bad rep because they tried to make it an lmg, and didnt use the monitor config.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Most gangsters of the time obtained thier big weapons from raiding police and national guard armories.
        >So the NFA would have no impact on them, but it wasnt meant to.
        Ok?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          People could buy these and thompsons pre NFA.
          The nfa was passed citing gangsters as the reason. When it was really fear from civilian and veteran uprisings, as communism was taking root in the world, and the Bonus Army had just scared the Capitol.

          So answering those lamenting not being able to purchase them at the gun store. The nfa wouldnt have stopped most infamous gangsters using full auto at the time since most obtained those guns from police and military and not civilian sources.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >U.S. Army was too cheap to convert them
      This seems surprising, the US Army must have spent a fortune on issuing a semi auto rifle to all infantrymen in WW2, implying they had big money, but why didn't they give them a good light machine gun as well, it is just as important.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They had no less than three smg models at the time, all firing .50 ammo. That's a lot of suppression fire and probably reduced the need for a full auto weapon between them, the BAR and the M1919.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They had no less than three smg models at the time, all firing .50 ammo
          did you mean .45?
          the M2 is definitely not an SMG

          SMGs were pretty rare in US service, tommy guns were kept in the company weapon pool and only handed out on request, platoons didnt get one as standard
          later in the war, they were moved up to the battalion weapon pool

          only drivers were issued an SMG as standard, and only after 1944, with the M3 grease gun
          this was presumably because they needed the shortest possible gun so that it didnt interfere with them getting in and out of the vehicle

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            One guy told me a story where he needed a weapon and a tank crew handed him an M3, saying nobody would've even noticed it gone. It's small and fits right in a tank for years without anyone noticing it enough to be encumbered. A lot of M3s must've spent tons of decades peacefully sleeping away.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Tank crews just had/have a habit of picking up any weapon they find and sticking it somewhere inside the tank. 1911s, grease guns, shotguns, thompsons, grenades of all sorts, even BARs, extra M1919s and bazookas. It still goes on today, I think it was The Chieftain or someone he was talking to who said in OIF his tank had the M4s everyone was issued plus an M203 on the commander's, a couple 870s, some M9s, an MP5 or two, a couple AT4s, a bunch of various grenades taken from god knows where, some AKs and Toks taken from dead Iraqis, and a spare M240 stowed in the gear rack on the back of the turret.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >this was presumably because they needed the shortest possible gun so that it didnt interfere with them getting in and out of the vehicle
            So that they could pull it out in a hurry because it turns out there's actually not much space inside a tank

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because there was 1-3 1919s attached to every squad

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          TOE had a machine gun section for each platoon, so 2x M1919s for 3x rifle squads, though the third rifle squad was usually held in reserve, so thats one M1919 per squad in practice
          M1918s were the 3x of per squad, with 1 per squad, with extras in the company weapons pool to reinforce squads with a second BAR if needed
          3 was possible, and standard in the marines, but 2 was more common

          though 3x M1919s per squad was definitely possible, if they removed the MGs off the half-tracks that were unused
          the logistics section and the HQ section had several half-tracks that wouldnt necessarily be used in battle, so their M1919 was usually free for the taking if they were so inclined

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The elites don't want you to know this but the M1919s at the company HQ are free.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              if you want a truly staggering quantity of machine guns, entirely outside of standard doctrine, then look no further than the armored infantry
              on paper, they had the same firepower as a rifle squad, if not less as they had no spare BARs in the company weapon pool, with 2 M1919s per platoon and 1 BAR per squad
              but anecdotes from armored infantry often make references to a second BAR gunner, meaning they borrowed or stole an extra gun from somewhere

              the M1919/M1917 on their own half-track was, officially for defending the vehicle
              but despite this, it was still issued with a tripod, and so troops could bring an extra M1919/M1917 per squad
              the weapons platoon also came with an M2 browning mounted on their half-track, also with a tripod, in case they wanted to replace (or if they found 3 riflemen with nothing to do, add) an HMG
              the anti-tank battalion had 3x M1919s on their half-tracks, and if they decided they didnt need local protection, thats 3 more machine guns for to add

              they would have had more machine guns than there were people to man them, if they decided to make like a magpie and strip all vehicles of their machine guns
              they had something like 50 total .30cal machine guns and 40 M2 brownings, most of which had a tripod despite official policy being to not use the tripod
              the driver could also dismount at the leisure of the platoon commander, if they felt the half-tracks were not in danger of being attacked or stolen, and add either an additional SMG to a squad or to man the machine gun if they took it off the half-track

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The army was cash-strapped throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, and when that started to change the focus was on producing existing small arms, not adopting new models. We lucked out on the Garand because it had already been produced in enough numbers that we kept with it. If it had been adopted two or three years later, we probably would have said "frick it, we're going back to the Springfield" when the army started expanding in 1940.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My grandpa carried the fricker in Vietnam when he was designated pointman

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Four factors

    1. Double-stack magazine designs weren't perfected on rifles until the 1950s. Even the StG 44, the world's first assault rifle, was stuck using single stack magazines, hence it's unusually large appearance.

    2. The BAR uses .30-06, among the larger calibers, so a magazine larger than 20 rounds would be extremely cumbersome.

    3. Springs for magazines were known for being delicate at the time, the larger the magazine, the more likely it was to break. Even into the Vietnam War, it was not uncommon for M16 20 and 30 round magazines to be only loaded with 18 and 28 rounds to reduce stress on the spring.

    4. 40 round magazines actually did exist for the BAR, but they were unsuitable for field use for the reasons I just mentioned and were relegated to use as a static anti-aircraft weapon

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Roy Roush only died two years ago

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone think the H-CAR is worth the absurd price? I wont to hold some true BAR glory.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The AR18 would have been the god mode of WW2 weapons.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this thread again

    It was made during a war that was experiencing an arms revolution. The British were still using musket line slow walk tactics into German machine nests. Pistols as we know them now weren’t common sense until 1911 and standard issue auto loading rifles were another 25 years off. Detachable magazines were a novelty. Single operator LMGs/SAWs wouldn’t surface until the cold war.

    The M1918 was a massive improvement over five round, manual action rifles. It was never an LMG, it was an early battle rifle; even in WWII, the US had the M1919 as a proper GPMG, but modern tacticians misattribute the use of the BAR as something to be compared to an M240 or PKM, which is just wrong.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Explain this Anions story then:

      My grandpa carried the fricker in Vietnam when he was designated pointman

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Designed explicitly for walking fire and attacking trenches
    >Already a fricking brick of a gun
    >*makes it even heavier*
    anon pls. Not only that but with manufacturing tech of the time big ass magazines tended to have reliability issues, I'd rather have 20 rounders I know will work than 30s that jam all the time.

    The real shame is that the Lewis Gun wasn't adopted.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The real shame is that the Lewis Gun wasn't adopted.
      It was.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You know exactly what I mean homie

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I did

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In addition the Browning M1917 and the Lewis M1917, there was a third M1917 machine gun; the Marlin. It was a M1895 Colt Potato Digger minus the swingarm (the patent on the gas piston had subsequently expired).

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    BAR tripod mount. Discuss.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fricking moronic. Sacrificing the only benefit the BAR had which was mobility. Although outside of combat it may be useful for sighting in your BAR.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I see your tripod, and I raise you the D38579 mount

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Twin BAR AA mount. Discuss.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Am I the only one who finds it strange that the Bren gun never gets shat on for "not being a machine gun"? It's magazine capacity was only ten rounds more and it was kept in service FAR past its obsolescence, the last use of them by the British was during the Gulf War, by which point, their Iraqi adversaries had a weapon that could fill the same role, but better in virtually every way, the AKM.

    Meanwhile, the BAR had already been almost completely retired from US service by the time M14E2s and M60s made their debut in the late-50s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Bren works as a LMG. The BAR doesn't. Simple as.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just quite simply a far superior LMG

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    2-3 of them alternating fire. They're just more portable LMG coverage for when the .30 Browning isn't available or repositioning. And the maneuver element could take them when the Browings are around.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >hey this gun isn't that great
    >yeah but uhhh just have more of them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it had a few advantages that they were able to take advantage of
      namely that it was easy to fire from the shoulder or while standing, and the box magazine was easy to reload

      so it was able to function as a modern LMG, able to move up with the squad and fire
      whereas the bren or type99 were only barely capable of shoulder fire and would need to go prone to fire

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In 1918 it was pretty fricking good, in 1970 it was moronic. Don't blame the gun for people keeping it in service way too long.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >in 1970 it was moronic.
      >"Many times since my three tours of duty in Vietnam I have thanked God for ... having a BAR that actually worked, as opposed to the jamming M16 ... We had a lot of Viet Cong infiltrators in all our [Special Forces] camps, who would steal weapons every chance they got. Needless to say, the most popular weapon to steal was the venerable old BAR."

      ror
      rmao

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        M16 reliability issues are overstated and and anecdotes don't count for much

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lets be honest the NVA and VC had more men than guns so took anything better than a bolt gun.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Silly question, was the BAR ever experimented with optics?

    I remember watching this old Charleton Heston movie where he had a BAR with a night vision sight attached to it.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >If the BAR was actually good why did only the US adopt it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Vietkong also used ancient Japanese last ditch weapons from the second sino-japanese war. That doesn't make the BAR good, it just means they used anything they could get their hands on. ARVN were equipped with old WW2 surplus cus the US saw them as disposable

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >What are you gonna do with your Bren when the barrel starts overheating and the threat is still attacking?

    I mean it does hold 10 more rounds, it’s just going to overheat that much more quickly, pretty stupid argument you’re leaning on if you ask me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bren, ZB and the MG-34/42 take like 10 seconds to change the barrel and you're good to go. Bren didn't even need a heat glove which made it even easier

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A feature never used in practice.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          tell that to the guys in north africa

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody was carrying spare Bren barrels in the North African heat, and the British got their dicks kicked in anyway.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The rest of the section would carry those

              As for the germans... you can see photographic evidence of them wearing asbestos gloves for barrel changes even in Russia

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You can fire a MG42 from the shoulder
    you arent supposed to, and you arent hitting anything if you try
    MG42 could only be used standing from the hip, which was the only actual technique taught in training
    and it was an incredibly niche one, used for when you were disembarking from a vehicle

    the MG42 as strictly a bipod weapon, with any kind of standing fire being an incidental
    the BAR was a shoulder-fired weapon, it was much better at it than the MG42 or even the bren, and bipod firing was for when it was convenient to do so

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The BAR was designed for hip fire, it was developed around the concept of walking fire. It was pressed into the automatic rifle role after walking fire proved to be a stupid fricking idea, but a shoulder fired weapon that weighs upwards of 20 lbs is hardly ideal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the BAR was a shoulder-fired weapon

      No it wasn't

      If it was the colt monitor wouldn't exist, and even the police argued that thing was too heavy and expensive. Something like $300 per gun compared to about $140 for a late war bren gun. Or a $10 sten gun.

      this whole circlejerk with BAR is moronic when the americans have a perfectly good all american weapon with the Lewis gun. You can stop sucking John Brownings wiener at any time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >No it wasn't

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they were laying down with 3" blocks of metal on their forehead wating to trade with HMG's in bunkers, not LMG's, fricking HMG's

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Outperforms the BAR in everyway and has a much greater effect on mobile firepower but is quietly forgotten

    Is it the effect of videogames?

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Any slander against the bar will not be tolerated, you will KNEEL against the power of the automatic fire of .30-06

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Kneels
      >*Unsheathes Katana*
      >Kills 100+ american piggu doggu after sneaking in banzai attack at iwo jima

      heh, nothing personnel

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The BAR was adopted by other countries, not counting those who received it through lend-lease or other programs. Both Belgium and Poland produced and exported their own variants as well.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What if we turned the BAR upside down and gave it a belt-feed system?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the sweds did

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just love Bren guns lads

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Germans pioneered the GPMG concept and most nations only adopted them in the Post War period.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    the BAR was adopted by other countries, Belgium, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, China, and i think some baltic countries all come to mind. we have to remember that it is not designed as a light machine gun, it was a squad automatic weapon from 1918 so some leeway is to be expected. it isn't intended to replace belt fed machine guns it is intended to give an 8 man squad better volume of fire. and the BAR would later go on to (through the Swedish) become the FN MAG and M240

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >680 BC
    >a fricking sling
    >were people in the day just moronic?
    Global rule #2

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >If the BAR was actually good why did only the US adopt it?
    80 countries and counting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because clearly we are discussing the action exclusively, and no other aspect of the weapon.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >If the BAR was actually good why did only the US adopt it?
    It was used by dozens of countries, and variants were manufactured in Belgium, Swede, and Poland.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The BAR isn't a light machine gun and it was never intended to be. The only ones who ever tried to use the BAR as an LMG were the cavalry, and even then they used a different model.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *