opinions on the browning automatic rifle

M

mg357

Absent Comrade
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
3,493
Reaction score
2,709
Location
washington illinois
Dear Smith and Wesson Forum i would like to hear some opinions on the Browning Automatic Rifle or as it was know to military personnel who used it. the B.A.R. sincerely and respectfully mg357 a proud member of the Smith and Wesson Forum.
 
Register to hide this ad
First, it's heavy - really heavy and especially if you are carrying a full combat load of ammo plus assorted other necessities. Its rate of fire is pretty limited because of the 20 round magazines and non-changeable barrel. It isn't a substitute for a real machine gun with belt feed, removable barrel, etc. On the plus side, it is reliable, accurate, and relatively easy to shoot. In summary, it is more rifle than machine gun and a very heavy unwieldy rifle at that.
 
To condense the above post, Too heavy for a rifle, to0 light for a machine gun. I would love to have one. P.S. Barrels can't be changed Out.
O.Z.
 
Cool factor----Oh yeah...........Do I want one-----Oh yeah..........Bonnie and Clyde thought it was a good rifle even thought they had to cut it down.(before they were cut down) :)
 
Never fired one...know many that did.
Have held one many times, made me drool uncontrollably. I fell in love with it.
Wasn't there a company not too long ago that made a semi-auto version?
Would be interesting to see the reaction at the rifle range, though.
 
Sprefix said:
Cool factor----Oh yeah...........Do I want one-----Oh yeah..........Bonnie and Clyde thought it was a good rifle even thought they had to cut it down.(before they were cut down) :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was Clyde Barrows favorite gun for killing cops. The savage animals got what they deserved (Bonnie & Clyde, not the cops), its too bad they died so quickly.
 
When the BAR was developed the Infantry carried bolt action rifles, the submachine gun was just being developed-the OVP in Italy, machine guns-the Maxim, the Vickers, the Schwarzlose, etc., were all heavy (100lbs +) setups that were not easily moveable. The crude nature of communications in WWI meant that FOs and Fire Support Teams-when there were any-depended on field telephones and runners to report targets and order fire missions. The BAR-and the Lewis Gun before it-were attempts to give the Infantry some desperately needed close fire support
as they all too often advanced over open ground against dug in opponents who may-or may not-have been "softened up" by artillery fire.
The heavy machine guns were water cooled, the Lewis Gun had a air cooled jacket around its barrel. The concept of a quick change barrel does not appear until the German MG34. The BAR was meant to be an Automatic Rifle, not a Machine Gun per se, it functioned very well in that role.
 
My father-in-law tells me stories that his father told him about when he was in WWII. Said his dad was the BAR man and would take a step forward and fire a short burst during his forward momentum, and he would fire a burst each time his right foot took a step. During Japanese mass Bonzai attacs he would have a guy on each side handing him magazines and he "mowed down a bunch of em", and from other stories his dad told him, my father-in-law still hates Japanese to this day.
 
it was an excellent automatic rifle for its time. It did what the Chauchat was intended to do, but which was too badly designed and manufactured to accomplish. In that role, its weight was a distinct advantage. Neither the M-14E2 nor the M-15 succeeded in replacing it.

As a light machinegun, it's marginal. The ZB-26 and Bren Gun were far superior.

At the time it was introduced, it was the best of its kind, just as was the Fokker D-VII. Twenty years later, unlike the Fokker it was still viable in combat.
 
There was a BAR belt issued, had pouches for the magazines, on the right side there was a metal fitting for the gunner to brace the butt in.
 
The handguards had a habit of catching fire if used for prolonged firing.

By 1944 attempts to replace it with the M1919A6 were already underway.

It did help beget the first fire team based squads.

The ammo belts could be, and sometimes were, reused to hold a bunch of M16 mags.

I think the Army retired them in the Mid1950s. Some lasted in action in the P.I. and with South Vietnamese forces after that.

I doubt most modern soldiers and Marines have ever seen one outside of a museum.
 
My uncle enlisted in 61 and he trained on one at basic he had a tour in kansas and a tour in england got out before vietnam got too intense. My dad was drafted in 68 and trained on m14 in basic then got sent to arizona for a year then turkey for a year. Never saw a BAR while he was in. Despite training on m14 he has no interest in any of my m1a or variants. Just prefers his old smiths he does like a good 1-866-706-4357 and a colt 1911 tho
 
All.
Have fired a couple, was well after my active duty time in USMC. What a hoot. During it's day, WWII and Korean War, it was well used by USMC.
Do not compare it to machine guns or sub machine guns, it is neither. It is an automatic rifle capable of controlled full auto fire. Capable of long range fire. It is a capability currently lacking in USMC weapons.
Bill@Yuma
 
How to feel old: sometime in the 1980s I was talking to a very senior Sergeant Major and I mentioned the old saying; "The smallest man in the squad gets to carry the BAR". He asked me, "What's a BAR?"
 
There is an old Marine in my family that is quite fond of the BAR. He carried one into combat for 3 years across the Pacific in WWII. He always speaks of the rifle with fondness. He told me that he often wonders how many men he killed with it during that time.

Cyrano, you're right on. My Great Uncle is a small man, about 5'5". I can imagine that back in his youth he probably didn't weight much more than 160 pounds.
 
The last one I saw on active duty was at Ft Dix in the 1980's. There was two BAR mounted on the watch tower on the rifle range I qualified on. When we arrived on line the Range Officer pointed out a wooden ammo crate about 150 yds out, gave a signal and a Range NCO emptied the magazine in nice, controlled, 3-4 rd bursts into the the crate.

"That BAR is on the tower in case one of you decides to pull a Full Metal Jacket" the RO explained. Later I asked why they didn't use an M60 on the tower. The Range NCO looked at me for a second and replied "We've always used BARs for this because the longer sight radius makes them a little more precise than an M60. If I do have to shoot someone on the line, I sure as heck don't want to accidentally hit someone else." For that application I think the BAR was a good choice.
 
I have fired the BAR quite a bit.
I am also a big fan of the M1 Garand, and have shot them a bunch as well.
I have shot the Thompson, and the M1 Carbine.

Baised on that, IF I had been in WWII I would want a BAR, striped down, no bipod, no handle for most uses in most places...

In the cities, for building to building, and indoor use, the 45 ACP Thompson is a good choice, maybe better, I like the 45 ACP for up close for sure, but even then I could use a BAR with good effect...

A Garand would be OK as well, but I am just not a fan of the M1 carbine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Savage Model 1907
Replies
12
Views
432
DEF3
D
AJ
Savage Model 340V .225 Winchester
Replies
10
Views
1K
AJ
AJ
wundudnee
Winchester model 60As
Replies
7
Views
400
wundudnee
wundudnee
Doug627
Thoughts On The Winchester Model 71
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
TOM BECKWITH
T
chief38
MY INFAMOUS WINCHESTER WANNABE MODEL 62A ROSSI RIFLE
Replies
16
Views
954
alwslate
A

Latest posts

Back
Top