so why didn't they just give the bar to every soldier? would

They're extremely fucking heavy that's why. The whole reason we developed the M1 Carbine was that even the Garand was too big and bulky. Sheer volume of fire counts for a lot regardless of ammunition size, so long as it can reach out to ~300yd, which is where the StG44, AK, and AR came from.

>>31204700

The BAR was stupidly heavy for gun feeding from 20-round magazines.

>>31204710
>>31204751
don't forget expensive as fuck

>>31204751
I still can't believe some faggots in Ohio are dressing it up in tacticool select-fire mode, giving it 30 round mags, and selling it for $5k. That HCAR is going to sell like ten units.

Generally it took a 2-man team to operate a BAR.
At the long ranges modern and even WW2 combat took place at, you'd mostly just waste ammo, one-at-a-time aimed shots are more effective, which is where the Garand shined.

>>31204769

ten thousand? there was that guy here on /k/ that bought two when it first dropped.

File: 1472898527803.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>>31204782

>pic related

File: Firearms_practice,_1936[1].jpg (2MB, 2100x1659px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1659px

>>31204700

>>31204798
Just war stories I heard from Marine vets.
Also if you read about the Afghanistan war (where everyone had assault rifles), journalists said you could tell where the Americans were because they fired single shots while the dhurka-dhurkas just blasted away.

>>31204769
i think something like that might be effective for police dealing with situations that require the extra firepower short of handing them M60s or the other GPMGs

>>31204804
>that compensator

muh dick

Because in terms of volume of fire, the Garand was more the sufficient compared to the bolt actions primarily armed by other countries of that time.

Not to mention it was heavy, expensive, and was outdated by WWII when compared to weapons like the Bren and Type 99.

>>31204860
So jack shit?

>>31204700
They're heavy and have shitty mag capacity. Not to mention expensive. Also rate of fire had issues

>>31204909
Ooh, looky, it's also in Wikipedia!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
>At the start of the war, most infantry companies designated two- or three-man BAR teams, a gunner and one or two assistant gunners (ammo bearers)
Well, whaddya know. Maybe you /k/ids could learn something from listening to people with actual real-world wisdom.

I've had a permanent erection ever since I learned that Al Capone carried a sawn off BAR as his personal weapon

>>31204700

A BAR(A2) costs more than the M1A1 Thompson, in which still costs more per unit than the M1 Garand.

>>31204872
>Extra firepower
What extra firepower? Considering the relative loading of commercial 30-06 and the price of the HCAR, there is zero advantage of the HCAR over the M14,FAL, G-Series, AR10 or SCAR with standard mags or the various 30-50rd mags that exist for each.

>>31204935
>ammo bearers
My roommate's great uncle was a BAR gunner in Korea, he had one of those. Apparently 20 round mags don't work well against mass Chinese infantry attacks.

Anyway on one occasion during these attacks his ammo bearer panicked and tried to desert. His great uncle shot him dead, which sounds like bullshit to me, because why would anyone want to tell their family they summarily executed a deserter?

But yeah, anyway ammo bearers. Crazy stuff.

>>31204935
He's not asking for citation on 2 people operating as a team to use a BAR you fucking retard, he's saying you dont understand how volume of fire and fire and maneuver works, and you're taking anecdotal evidence and probably fucking up what they said anyway.

>listening to people with actual real world wisdom
Who you? Or myself, a fucking infantryman?

Stop fucking typing, you goddamned child.

>>31205060
>why would anyone want to tell their family they summarily executed a deserter?
Because it wasn't Nam, so people still remembered how fucked up the Japs were, so shooting a guu that was leaving his countrymen to die was different. Both bullshit and truth are plausible there. Different times man

>>31204700
You've clearly never held a BAR and the ammunition that would've been standard. It's obscenely heavy. The Garand was heavy enough as it was.

>>31204798
>>31204909
It's also common fucking sense ya nitwit.

>>31204700
I like this idea! But
Taking human nature into consideration, if it had been a good idea, I'm sure squads would have picked up more as they went along. Doctrine changed from one BAR in the squad into 2 because they wanted them and scrounged them up . It's a balance of mobility and firepower that's useful.

>>31205060
Wtf ammo bearers, we don't have ammo bearers, it was prolly some south korean that got battlefield conscripted

>>31205968
We STILL have "assistant automatic riflemen" who carry extra ammunition for the AR. These people carry rifles of their own.

>>31205060
Uncle had similar story.
Guy tried to run with the M1919 ammo.
Uncle shot him. Told his CO after. CO did nothing.

>>31204700
its about the same reason why they didnt give every soldier a browning .50?

>>31205997
I like the term ammo caddy myself.

>>31204872
Pretty sure police can get something higher power for less than $5000.

File: 2016-07-30 14.56.38.jpg (923KB, 2981x1676px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 2981x1676px

>>31204700
Because then it would have become situation of rape and we needed to remain the good guys.

>>31204700
>Why didn't they give every soldier a much more expensive and heavier rifle firing the same round as the rifle they already had.

I know right? And why didn't they put chunks of gold into grenades as well?

I fired a BAR.

How such a heavy gun can recoil so much is beyond me.

File: stinger[1].jpg (89KB, 848x477px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 848x477px

ANM2 Stingers were superior to the BAR.

File: 2016-07-26 14.47.41.jpg (1MB, 2981x1676px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2981x1676px

>>31205005
You sir have no idea what you're talking about.

>>31206233
At laying down suppressive fire in one place you are absolutely right these things were lead slingen monsters, but going from place to place in a hurry not so much. Remember the initial purpose of the BAR was for that, idea, of walking fire.
An idea that is utterly ridiculous mind you but that was the idea. They have low recoil no matter what the f*** >>31206232 says. And are relatively easy to keep on target with the buffer system they had and their extreme weight. But the truth of the matter is the BAR only had one advantage over any of the comprable weapons in service with it and that was a removable box magazine. In the grand scheme of things that means nothing. The BAR was a noisy 30-06 heaving monster that did his job well for suppressive fire and throwing a lot of heavy bullets down range from just one man. Its design its capabilities and its strength in the grand scheme of things will have failed our soldiers more than it would have helped them.

File: fa_mg_m1919_v3.jpg (27KB, 800x593px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 800x593px

>>31206233
meh, if only it used this futuristic looking stock.

Looks so flimsy though. I expect it would probably break at some point in combat.

>>31206254
You sir, are trying desperately to justify your purchase.

>>31206254
I'm sure it's a fun toy but a SCAR (or any other 7.62x51 rifle, really) could do the same job better for police for much cheaper.

>>31206754
220gr bullet let's see it try and throw one of those...>>31206695

>>31206254

Damn that looks nice.

>>31206695
The number of animals it's taken just in this past year justifies the purchase it reaches the 750 yard targets with very little to no trouble with Factory ammo. I don't have to justify anything this bad girl speaks for herself.

File: 1472211788990.jpg (41KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x440px

>>31207702
Thanks!

File: bar.jpg (115KB, 700x266px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 700x266px

What did they mean by this?

>>31208248
Which part?

File: 1459722288473.jpg (230KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 640x960px

>>31204710
> hurr durr its too heavy waaaa
Why didn't the troops just not be fucking faggy ass little cuck pussies then?

File: Screenshot_2016-09-03-20-44-44-1.png (331KB, 1440x1816px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1440x1816px

>>31207677
Ok.

You knows what's still cheaper than the HCAR and throws heavy ammo? A .338 Federal AR10. Hell, even a FNAR. You don't have to admit it, but you bought a novelty, you like it and thats OK. But don't try to say that's it's better than any of those other options

>>31204700
>so why didn't they just give the bar to every soldier?
okay i'll take the bait...why.
i'll also take a B.A.R. w/ however many mags you can spare.

>>31208274
You mean like all the troops that did in fact carry them while being thrown into the grinder of one of the largest conflicts in history? Are you too stupid to realize that shit like the BAR or BREN are in fact too fucking heavy for what they are especially when compared to something like the mg42. Look at the PKM or Mag for fucks sake

>>31204782
>At the long ranges modern and even WW2 combat took place at, you'd mostly just waste ammo, one-at-a-time aimed shots are more effective, which is where the Garand shined.

That's literally the opposite of what happened, which is why we ended up adopting intermediate calibers.

>>31205638
Thanks for your service, Mr. Debbil Dog.

>>31206254

Nemo 300 win mag > shitty 30-06 anything

>>31208274
>t. someone who didn't have to carry one

>>31206443
Im that guy.

Have you ever shot a BAR?
Sounds like no

File: 2016-08-11 12.51.36.jpg (906KB, 2981x1676px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 2981x1676px

>>31208515
KEK mother fucker what?

File: 34t7vc2[1].jpg (24KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 604x453px

>>31204700

The baseline BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) weighed 7.25 kilograms. That's pretty damn heavy for a rifle that only held 20 rounds per magazine and couldn't be belt-feed at all. But it gets worse. The Army kept modifying the design in weighs that only made it heavier and heavier by adding on useless junk with little value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIVTDo2Xno0

The best version of the BAR was the Colt Monitor as used by the FBI, which was shorter and lighter than the other versions. Still pretty hefty, but not monstrously overweight like the US Army version of BAR. The WW2 version of the BAR used by the US Army weighed a whopping 9.0 kilograms.....whereas the Colt Monitor weighed around 6.0 kilograms.

File: 1472227556879.jpg (36KB, 357x405px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 357x405px

>>31208503
Yes a magnum is better than a standard caliber. A 405 Cheytac intervention beats the shit out of 300 magshit anything.

>>31206656
That thing only weighs 15 kg i dont get why people say its heavy i could run for miles with that if i could get two more guys to carry the extra ammo or get that belt ammo back pack i could manage it

>>31204710
>that even the Garand was too big and bulky.

you don't even know how many times I've heard that from people when i hand them a garand... makes me wonder "damn, did we actually win ww2"?

>>31208696
>I could totally run for miles with that if someone else carried the rest of my shit
>t-trust me guize
No you couldn't.

>>31208344
Your right it is a novelty but damn it's a nice novelty.

File: IMG_20160903_223343.jpg (2MB, 1850x5248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1850x5248px

>>31204769
I just got the OG one.

File: 1470698329026.gif (974KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 400x300px

>>31208797
Nice!

File: inigo1.jpg (55KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x432px

>>31208797
Just to settle something, how's the kick?

>>31208797
>he bought a shit gun for 8k

File: 1458081025211.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>31208680

300 win mag, sub MOA, 14 rounds, semi auto, little recoil, and only 10 pounds

versus

405, bolt action, sub MOA, 7 boolits, and 31 pounds


Nemo is better than your shitty 30-06 and cheytac shit.

eat dick.

>>31204782
>>31204860
>>31205638
the reason the army went back to full auto and single is because quick single shot are better for most engagement and you reserve full auto for the rare moments you need it.

triple shot had the problem of being stuck in the dead middle.

The BAR was always terrible

>>31208613
>that optic setup...

Pls don't do this, you could literally put anything else on that gun and I wouldn't be this annoyed.

>>31204700
Same reasons for why the M3 grease gun was developed
Thompson:
>limited capacity
>heavy
>expensive as fuck

>>31208397
most trained soldier still use single fire today.

the advantage of intermediate caliber is less recoil, allowing for faster follow up shots.

>>31209790
>limited capacity

what? 30 rd mag is plenty enough for a smg.

>>31209933
anything less than 32 is meme tier

File: 1471954521749.jpg (38KB, 615x346px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 615x346px

>>31209714
Are you really thinking a CheyTac <Nemo?

File: 2016-06-23 16.32.59.jpg (467KB, 2981x1676px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 2981x1676px

>>31209788
It's usually in this setup. Pictures of the EOTech on it are from when I had to send the scope off. Vortex sucks. About the single life again for the same f****** reason that soon enough the first time. The radicals crooked and there are oil droplets on the radical itself.

>>31210525
>vortex sucks

what happened

>>31208892
Almost non existent. It's so heavy that it absorbs it. And by heavy its 20lbs I've dealt with heavier

>>31209159
I'm pretty sure they're going for like 4K, still pretty goddamn expensive, but even if it's heavy and impractical as fuck, it's still pretty badass and looks like it would be fun to shoot, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want one.

>>31210555
Awesome.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x360px

>>31210498
>>31209714
>>31208680
>not just getting your suppressive weapon chambered in .338 NM
It's like you guys don't even keep up with the newest hotness.

>>31210536
Over the course of shooting the rifle through 2015, I thought my scope had broke lose. After resetting the scope it was clearly the reticle. It had rotated from top 12 O'clock to top at 11:45. There were also these weird oil droplets all over the crosshair reticle.

>>31210645
Yeah I should get with the times right.

>>31210684
Probably, I mean you're using an outdated cartridge in a gun that's been obsolete for at least 60 years.

File: 1464719161411.jpg (41KB, 421x834px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 421x834px

>>31210765
Oh Shit your serious?!?!?!

>>31204971
Was it Al Capone? I saw that on Weaponology where some gangster used one but I'm certain that wasn't him. Could be wrong.

File: clydeandbar.jpg (169KB, 518x580px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 518x580px

>>31211157
Clyde Barrow

>>31211183
Yeah. Didn't think so.

>>31211183

Live by the BAR, die by the BAR.

People complain about police brutality now, they ambushed that motherfucker and lit his car up with MG fire.

File: 25b07f1c9e6d131e1f6c75f513a05a5d.jpg (39KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x376px

>>31211227
Oh yeah they did. They got rekd! But in all honesty they didn't have it coming.

>>31211247
Did*

>>31211227
>>31211247
>>31211299
good thing they didn't ambushed the wrong guy

>>31204700
Pretty sure they were expensive and slow to manufacture. Doubt they would have been able to afford giving every soldier one. Can you imagine every single soldier having to carry that 24lb gun for mile after mile through the sweltering jungle? Fuck that shit.

File: 2016-09-04 10.45.38.jpg (36KB, 420x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 420x360px

>>31211556
God bless those poor guys that did.

>>31204700
They were heavy and expensive

>>31204700
They didn't have enough, and couldn't manufacture enough.

Also they were heavy as fuck and chewed through ammo.

>>31208632
Can i get that in freedom units?

>>31204700
Heavy as fuck, not very accurate and unwieldy, expensive and a waste of ammo. Ideally you wanted a pointman armed with a Thompson or M1 Carbine, one or two BARs and the rest Garands. The U.S. small unit tactics and weapons were actually much more advanced than anyone else in the war. They had more AOE weaponry in more hands and their tactics of "leap-frogging" could be understood and executed by pretty much anyone. The only thing the Germans had on them was experience, and defenders advantage.

>>31204700

>Heavy as fuck
>Only 20 rounds per mag
>Can't be belt-fed
>Terrible sights
>Can't remove the bipod
>Can't fold the bipod
>No semi-auto mode

>>31209159

Found the poor fag.

>>31216252
I guarantee you he's not the only one.

File: 1471530575206.jpg (521KB, 1900x1283px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1900x1283px

>>31216203
.....you kinda fell apart there at the end. bipod sucks. But it can be folded and can be taken off. It had multiple models with safe semi auto, as well as safe slow and rapid fire

>>31218836
Only the earliest models had a semi auto mode. WW2 models were limited to "slow" and "fast" FA.

>>31211556
Even if every dude back then had a BAR I bet today's average combat load would still be heavier. It's possible but probably not as advantageous as people might think. U.S. doctrine revolves around being able to have an assaulting element that can move decently quick. Anyone who's had to do battle drill 1A lanes all day with a SAW can tell you that the shit slows you down a lot.

It was made so you could aim better.

File: Image953.jpg (42KB, 610x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 610x480px

>>31218957
Well he said they were not semi at all, and in fact they were regardless of numbers.

Only thing that always gets me about the judgment of the BAR is people looking back with 20/20. It had problems, but the amount of combat and DOS of bullets was much lower. It was a "SAW" of its time hence 'support' not a hole-punch. The heavier MMGs filled that however they couldn't just displace with the speed of the squad so we're mostly attachments. Think about it in terms of we had the only mass fielded semi battle rifle and everyone else had 5 shot stripper clip fed guns. The Germans believed in supporting the machine gun from WW1 we flipped that strategy and used the machine gun to support the advancement of troops so a rapid moving firearm needed to be there could we of taken it back to the drawing board? Yes. But we know the level that we demilitarized after 1. So it makes sense we just didn't do it.

File: lm8mws_f_lg_1.jpg (210KB, 2800x1867px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 2800x1867px

>>31208344
>.338 Federal

I am fully erect

One day when I have ~$4k to spend on a rifle I'm buying the fuck out of an LM8MWS with a .338 Federal barrel

>>31219121

The BAR was way too damn heavy to be considered a proper SAW. 9.0 kilograms for a gun that feeds from 20 round magazines is messed up.

People seem to ignore the fact that the Bren gun weighed just as much, only had 5 more rounds in each magazine (30 rounders were rarely filled beyond 25 rounds because it would jam rather consistently), but was designed 20 years later.

>>31208632
>>31219121
>>31213406
>>31210576
>>31208377
>BAR Colt Monitor

Was there a reason why they never used this? It only weighed 13 lbs and had a rate of fire of 500 RPM. There has to have been some issues with reliability or cost because it doesn't make sense.

>>31204700

Because they're heavy and suck and the m1 is better

>>31219245
>kilograms

>>31219382

Remember that this was the same army ordinance board that refused the .276 Pedersen for the M1 Garand and refused to adopted the .280 cartridge for NATO after the war, and then only accepted the .223 grudgingly because McNamara pretty much told them they had to. They were also the guys who attached a bunch of useless crap to the BAR to make the WW2 version even heavier than the WW1 version.

>>31204935
He's calling you out on the semi comment, you dumb nigger

>>31205968
>Wtf ammo bearers, we don't have ammo bearers
Read a book some time. Squad organization back then included an ammo runner for the BAR in addition to the gunner and the AG

>>31219418

Yeah the m1 is 200 damage in cod right

>>31219413
I'm going to guess it had something to do with cost. When Colt offered them for commercial sale, they were prices at $300. That's $4800 adjusted for inflation. I don't know how much they cost to produce or what they sold for to the government, but that's not a good indicator. Reading the wiki, it appears even the base BAR was prohibitively expensive. I'd assume by the time the Monitor came about, nobody wanted to spend even more money replace expensive near-obsolete rifles with more expensive near-obsolete rifles even if they were lighter.

>>31219492

A .30-06 will kill pretty much anybody.

>>31219245
That's why I put it in " " it wasnt but it was about the best thing we had before the term was even coined

>>31216252


I mean, I get buying an expensive gun just because you think it's cool, I've done that. But it seems like people can't talk shit about any expensive gun without being a poorfag around here. The gun is objectively worse than other options, which is still fine if you dig it because it;s 2nd kind of cool, that doesn't mean anyone is poor...

inb4 poorfag

>>31219515
>>31219453
I looked a bit more into it. You're right, it had something to do with cost.

At the time of their production, the BAR cost roughly $319 – $1945 and that's not adjusted for inflation. The Mk II Sten SMG cost only $11.

The FBI only acquired 90 BAR Colt Monitors...lol

~$1000 in 1940 is roughly the equivalent of $17000 today.

>>31219549
>But we landed on the moon.
>Muh fredums
>Purrfegs frik off

>>31219245

All guns were heavy back then, look at the competition.

> Bren - 10.5 kilos
> DP - 9 Kilos
> Type -11 10.2 kilos (and this thing fired the wimpy 6.5 Arisaka instead of 30.06)

The only LMG that was lighter was the FG 42, and they only made like 2000 of those things.

The shortcomings of the BAR is that they issued it with a 20 round mag and not a 25 or 30, because the gun could certainly take a larger mag.

File: received_2099771906915476.jpg (60KB, 778x641px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 778x641px

>>31204804
It looks like a giant SVT muzzle brake.

>>31219874
>>31219515
>>31219453
I created a thread similar to this. Can someone answer >>31219838

>>31208274
You cant carry as much ammunition if your weapon is heavy, you can fight much longer with a lighter weapon than you can with a heavier one.