Would anyone else prefer one of these in WW2? >that range

>that weight

>>32407778
Nope.
Only took lifting one to realize how shitty it must have been to carry that thing in WW2.
I'd rather a Garand or M1 Carbine.

you literally know dog shit about weapons

File: Reiben.jpg (25KB, 500x286px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x286px

>>32407778
>20 round magazine
Wouldn't recommend trying to swim with it though.

>>32407778
OP must be the one person on /k/ who doesn't watch Forgotten Weapons

You might as well carry a m1919 around with you.

>>32407991
Don't tempt me with a good time.

>>32407778
You must not have held one before.
They are HORRIBLY heavy. Any other option would be better for moving around with.

File: HCAR.jpg (41KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x300px

>>32407778
If it didn't have a ridiculous weight it probably would have been a much more common gun among US troops.

Much as I'd like to own one I'd go with something else for a combat situation. Only way I'd roll a BAR derivative is if I could take an HCAR back to the past with me, apparently the 16 inch version is only a pound or so heavier than a Thompson.

File: OurFatherWhoArtInHeavenJohnMosesBrowningBeThyName.jpg (44KB, 640x909px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x909px

>>32408073
JMB frowns upon your shenanigans.

Didn't people chuck that bi-pod the first chance they got?

>>32408089
I wonder what he'd think of an HCAR. I'd be amazed if he would have hated it.

>>32407778
I think I'd go with a Spandau.

>>32407778
Fuck all these faggot pussies I'd rather have a 20-rd box-fed fully automatic rifle than a 8-rd Garand. And the m1 is my most favorite rifle

>>32408104
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG or BRAAAP?

File: ANM2.jpg (107KB, 914x490px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 914x490px

>>32407991

>Implying every male is a numale bitch

Too easy. You boys can go home and clean the dishes

Everyone who says they would want one has never walked holding a gun farther than from their car to the range entrance.

I'd take an m1 carbine any day

File: 21297343_1.jpg (22KB, 987x380px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 987x380px

>>32407991
i Think a BAR would be alot nicer to carry around

>>32408108

Eh, I don't think the extra 12 rounds are really worth the weight. Particularly given how quickly you can reload a garand.

Nope, Bren gun all the way. It's even better than the Spandau!

Don't listen to these faggots op. They probably prefer an m16 over an m14 because they are too heavy... Glorious BAR!

>>32407778
Depends, is the johnson lmg an option?

File: 1482031016987.gif (393KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 320x240px

>>32408794
>mfw every time I see that cadillac tailfin-style buttstock
Think of the style points though anon

>muh stopping power
next you are going to talk about it's kick

>>32407778
are you mad, we can't issue that weapon to front line troops, imagine if the huns got their hands one?

>>32407778
that meme

>>32407791
Manlet/Girlyman detected

>>32408883
Reread my post again you stupid nigger

>>32408108
I'm sure you'd love carry 21 pounds across Europe

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

1MB, 2981x1676px

>>32407778
What are you talking about a roll with it now... well... kinda.

>that weight

File: Marine Automatic Rifleman smoking in Okinawa.jpg (73KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x672px

It's pretty A E S T H E T I C

>>32411160
I would because I'm not a malnourished manlet

>>32407778

They should have adopted the Colt Monitor, and handed them out like candy.

13 pound automatic 30.06 to make the Krauts and Japs piss themselves.

>>32411847
I'm not a manlet, but I would prefer 10 pounds

File: ball less.gif (2MB, 500x183px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x183px

>>32411239
>I own it now!
>well,,,yeah
>i mean...kinda?
No
No you fucking don\t

>>32407778
> Would anyone else prefer one of these in WW2?
no
just give me a Grease Gun M3A1 with 6 magazines and I will still be lighter then a BAR

>>32407778
>20 round mag with high fire right
>Weighs roughly as much as a Sherman tank
Fuck that.

File: bar1922.jpg (10KB, 600x192px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 600x192px

>>32407778
Not really, no. An M1922 would be cool, but those were rare as fuck.

The place you'd really want one is France, 1918.

>>32407829
is it a good /k/ approved movie?

>>32407778
Yeah, I would over the M1 Garand, heavy as all fuck but I got a strong back.

File: 48-FNFND.jpg (158KB, 1816x763px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1816x763px

Not an FN BAR D or swedish variant.

Oh lawdy, it's like you hate improvements.

File: Browning BAR- Clyde Barrows custom shorty.jpg (9KB, 471x211px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 471x211px

Clyde's infinimag.

File: 1479728699120.webm (3MB, 630x280px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 630x280px

>>32407778
Damn straight I would love to have on in ww2.
>>32407788
>weight
Damn straight that thing is so light you can use it one handed while carrying the upper torso of a corpse as a shield.

>>32414694
what in the actual fuck

>>32414694
> goes through head with ease
> "body" armor
> lol, only 8mm Mauser

>>32414864
>>only 8mm mauser
>clearly japs
muh jap 308

In WW2 videogames it was usually depicted as "low fire rate, great power, but you never find ammo", wonder how true it is.

But I remember playing Medal of Honor, pacific assault, and they hand you one while escaping on a boat to shoot down the Zeros raiding.

Quite baffling, I know is a product of fiction but I wonder, could this gun really inflict significant damage to a Zero? Even conceding they were moving quite close?

>>32414694
>mel gibson
>not a talentless hack

oh I am laffin

>>32414912
>In WW2 videogames it was usually depicted as "low fire rate, great power, but you never find ammo", wonder how true it is.

It's the same ammo as the 1903 and 1917 rifles?

>>32414912
>Quite baffling, I know is a product of fiction but I wonder, could this gun really inflict significant damage to a Zero? Even conceding they were moving quite close?

Air plane guns were .303Br, .30-06 and 8mm mauser at the start of the second world war.
It's only later in the war that 50cal, 20mm etc became more common.
So yeah, it can take down a plane, but bigger is often better.

File: ZMvMzEL.png (245KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 550x600px

>>32414566
yes

File: AK-47-Drum-Magazine-Korean.jpg (79KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x600px

>>32414649

Give it a drum mag and it's perfect.

File: logistics.jpg (110KB, 800x476px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x476px

>>32414912
>In WW2 videogames it was usually depicted as "low fire rate, great power, but you never find ammo"

Wut?

wz28 is better in every way
american bar is shit

>>32415242
I just realised i dont have a fucking clue how drum mags work

>>32407778
According to vets, bars where valued. Whoever someone with a bar died, someone would pick it up and use it.

>>32415292
Yeah same, black magic shit.

>>32415302
Well it was the only support weapon they commonly had so you wouldn't want to lose it.

>>32415310
Yes, but it has a great psychological effect.

For the user a big honking hunk of steel firing big rounds fully automatically. It's empowering.

For the enemy, a big hunk of metal firing big ammo at you, that will shred your cover and you. It's unnerving.

>>32407778
M1918A2
>About 19lb unloaded
>Over 20lb loaded
>Barely lighter than typical mag-fed LMGs of the time
>Fixed barrel cannot be changed out when overheated
>20-rnd mag is smaller than just about any other WWII LMG's capacity
>Sights are too tiny for stressful use
>Bipod is shit-tier
>Complex disassembly
>No semi-auto capability, just bullshit slow-auto or 'fast'-auto

M1918 BAR from WWI
>About 3lb lighter
>No bullshit bipod
>Better sights

They basically fucked the BAR design with the A2, and something tells me, it was done AFTER John Moses Browning passed away in 1926 or so.

>>32408794
True, but that's like saying a Martini Henry carbine would be a lot nicer to carry around than a Lee Metford. Neither of them would have been particularly good in WWII and there were A LOT better options available at the time.

>>32409033
In some ways, yes, the BREN was better than the MG42 and MG34. Not all ways, but some, but LindyBeige or whatever that opinionated idiot's name is was a moron.

>>32415302
If there's a lot of shit going on, then yeah, a full-auto is nice, but the M1918A2 was one of the worst LMGs of WWII. It would suck to carry, and just about any LMG that an enemy soldier is carrying, or an allied soldier from another nation, would be better. Even a DP-28 would be better than a BREN.

>>32415354
Even a DP-28 would be better than a BAR. A BREN would be better than either. I did a mind-derp.

>>32415359
>>32415354
>any gun is better
Besides the point, they're still really valuable to the soldiers.

Your and mine arm chair general, never fought a war ass can read through specs and data and chose best gun. Most soldiers want something that makes them feel safe. Most of the war is psychological.

Same reason people given m1s weren't happy, because of the THICC WINTER COAT meme.

>>32407778
Reenactor here, I own a Ohio ordnance BAR.

30-06 is cool and all, but 20 rounds for 20 pounds is fucking ridiculous. Everyone seems to love the BAR until they get a chance to hold it. I would never carry it in actual combat

>>32415383
I'd rather an M1 Rifle or No.4 Lee Enfield. Hell, even a Mk.III* Lee Enfield like the Australians and Indians used throughout the war. WWII was a lot cleaner than WWI; give me a Ross! if I HAVE to carry an LMG, then give me a BREN.

>A little bit heavier than M1918A2
>Superior sights
>50% higher capacity
>Barrel can be changed
>Don't even need gloves to change barrel

I'd call those 2 or 3 extra pounds worth it.

>all these fucking manlets and betas

21lbs is not bad. I lift and carry boxes that weigh 20 - 50 pounds eight hours straight, five days a week. Go to the fucking gym.

>>32415426
There's a difference between 21lbs of box and 21lbs of gun. You're not trying to shoulder and aim the box, nor are you trying to maneuver around obstacles and rough terrain.
It doesn't matter how strong you are, a heavy rifle is a heavy rifle, and anything over about 10-12lbs is just obnoxious to actually use.

>>32410881
Very tough guy

>>32415426
>clearly has never held a BAR

6'6" and go to the gym 4 times a week, and I still wouldn't carry a BAR. It's deceptively hard to keep a 20lb rifle shouldered for any period of time.

>>32407778
Id probably carry it.

>>32415454
>>32415459
>implying I don't shoulder the boxes and make 'pew pew' sounds when no one is around

Lmaoing at you

>>32414912
BAR used .30-06
Garand used .30-06
M1919 used .30-06
Fuckloads of guns used .30-06 in WWII
You're generally not going to have any issues finding it unless supply is cut off.

Video games have this magical little bullshit thing called balance. Balance means they try to make it competitive and fun instead of realistic. A fine example would be Battlefield 1. MGs are regularly weaker than handguns even though automatic fire with cartridges like the .30-06, .303 British, and 7.92x57 would blow your face out your asshole far more effectively irl. How many times have you walked off MG fire in titles like Battlefield or Cock of Duty that would have absolutely murderfucked you IRL? Gameplay is almost never going to be truly accurate if at all.

Why didn't American troops use captured German LMGs, the Russians would outfit entire guard divisions with MG-34s as a sign of prestige.

File: 2016-12-05 09.36.12.jpg (3MB, 3771x2121px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3771x2121px

>>32414277
Yeah i kinda do.

>>32414694
>lets try and replicate the Saving Private Ryan D-Day scene but worse

>>32415796
Because it would have been a bitch and a half to keep themselves reasonably supplied with Kraut ammo, and they did most of their fighting with the Nips in the Pacific anyways.

>>32415784
Red Orchestra II is pretty close. They seem to give the M91/30, SVT-40, and DP28 all the same amount of damage, which is good, because though they're bolt action, semi-auto, and full-auto, they all shoot the same round; 7.62x54r. Similarly in Rising Storm, the M1 Rifle, M1903, M1918A2 BAR, and M1919A6 all do about the same damage because they all shoot .30-06. Fire rate makes no difference in terms of 'damage'. Meanwhile the accuracy is fairly realistic, the recoil is fairly realistic, and most LMGs are capable of over heating which, though I've not experimented to find out, does seem to affect accuracy in my experience.

There's also stuff like...

>Carrying heavier gear/more gear will make you run out of breath more quickly
>Can't sprint as fast when out of breath
>Aim is shaky when out of breath
>Can rest your firearm against something to make aim steadier
>Aim isn't as steady when standing as when crouched
>Aim isn't as steady when crouched as when prone
>Can set up your bipod on many different surfaces
>Recoil is harder to manage when standing than when crouched
>Recoil is harder to manage when crouched than when prone
>Reload by mag instead of 'ammo pool'
>Select fire
>Mag +1
Though some firearms do this when they shouldn't, like the BAR can go 20+1 even though it's open bolt and Mkb.42(H) can go 30+1 even though it's open bolt
>Kar98k is a bit faster to reload than M91/30 due to smoother clips
>Arisaka Type 38 and Type 99 have smoother bolts than M1903 due to cock-on-close action and shorter bolt throw required due to smaller rounds
>Last ditch Type 100 with fixed sights and much higher rate of fire has noticeably more recoil than standard Type 100 with adjustable sights and much slower rate of fire
>M91/30 and Kar98k bolts are practically the same in terms of bolt speed because both are cock-on-open and both have 90-degree bolt turns.
>Slower RPM LMGs overheat slower than faster RPM LMGs.

>>32416310
Also

>Pistol ammo can one-shot-kill with headshots or well-placed center-mass shot
>Rifle ammo is the same but can cause faster bleed-outs with wounding hits than pistol ammo
>Inability to heal or regain blood loss
>Can only attempt to stop blood loss with bandages.
You get two bandages, but chances are if you end up using both (VERY rare to survive getting shot/wounded twice since the vast majority of players use rifles instead of pistols/SMGs), you won't survive a third wound if you get more bandaging at an ammo dump.
>Cover fire causes player's vision to become a bit scattered/blurry and they twitch when bullets come close to hitting them making trying to calmly aim and shoot while under fire VERY difficult
>Can cook grenades in-hand, which is something that sadly not many games seem to allow you to do
>SVT-40 will reload with clips unless you shoot until empty
It's my belief that spare mags were only issued in small numbers even before Operation Barbarossa in Summer 1941. Once the Germans started giving the Soviet Hell, spare mags was done away with and reloading was only done with clips. This is my belief, not a known fact, which is why I barely EVER reload by swapping mags in the game, to try to be as realistic as possible. 99.9% of my reloading is with Mosin clips
>If you go to reload with 1 round left in your bolt action with no round in the mag, then opening the bolt will eject your final round meaning even though you only shot 4 rounds, you will reload with a 5-rnd clip instead of loose rounds
Sadly, the SVT-40 lacks this. If you have fired 9 rounds and there's only one round left, you will open the bolt while somehow the round goes down to the mag. The SVT-40 can go +1 without removing the mag, which I doubt was even possible, and also the SVT-40 can have the bolt held open with rounds still in the mag which is also impossible unless you remove the mag, finger the mag-well, and push up on the bolt hold-open under the bolt.

>>32407778

It does the same job as a Garand (inb4 BAR "suppression") at twice the weight, while being less comfy to reload prone and horribly unwieldy in comparison.

File: IMG_20160713_191320_010.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>32408103
>hcar
looks uglier than sin compared to the original

>>32417129
Well to be fair, the 'fast' auto for the M1918A2 is something like 500 RPM or so, which is nearly 10 shots per second. That's faster than most people can fire a semi-auto. Also, the sheer weight of an M1918A2 (over 20lb loaded) would help control the recoil while the M1 Rifle at maybe 10.5lb or so loaded would knock you around more. I understand what you're saying though. I'd rather have two guys with M1 Rifles rather than one guy with an M1918A2. Though I'd rather one guy with a BREN than two guys with M1 Rifles. What about five guys with M91/30s? Ooo, oh dear, what have I done...

>>32407778
Only if JMB was still alive to make the BAR belt fed.

Then it be god tier.

>>32408759
This.

I'd take the M1 carbine or a Garand over the BAR every time.

>>32415784
Yeah, but you're forgetting that they all use different methods of feeding.

The BAR used magazines, the M1 used clips, the M1919 used belts, and so on.

Without a magazine the BAR is a single shot rifle. Without a clip the M1 is a slightly lighter single shot rifle. Without a belt the M1919 is useless.

So while it's true that they're all .30-06, without preparation the weapons they use are near useless. While you could delink ammunition from the belt into a magazine, that would require more time that is practical. So even if you have a 200 rounds of ammo if don't have a belt/magazine/clip it might as well be the same thing as picking up incompatible ammunition.

File: eagle claw.jpg (16KB, 275x184px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 275x184px

Is there any military operation more ludicrously ill-conceived than the attempt to rescue the Iranina hostages in 1980 - Operation Eagle Claw?

Seriously - a two day mission involving hundreds of personnel from all services going into the capital of a hostile nation in trucks, finding and resueing a shitload of hostages then fighting their way out like it's a fucking 80s action movie.

Every single tiny thing has to go right at every stage otherwise it's a national disaster with hundreds of dead or captured Americans paraded on TV by a baying mob. It's lucky it went wrong at an early stage to avoid greater catastrophe. As it is, eight men were incinerated, they murdered an Iranian civilian and several US helicopters now serve the Iranian navy.

It's reminiscent of the Dieppe raid in WWII in its cascade of idiocy. Whose bright idea was this?

>>32417585
At best, an M1918A2 might be better than an M1 Carbine or M1 Rifle at a fixed position. Like if you've got a spot to defend, you have plenty of ammo available, don't need to run anywhere, and so on.

... but even then, those fucking sights meant for target shooting is garbage! then what do you do when the barrel overheats? You can't swap the fucker out! Piss on it? Is there a big bucket of water nearby in which to dunk the barrel/gas tube portion of the LMG to quench it cool? Nah, better off sticking with an M1 Rifle. Better sights, more accurate, faster reload (though to be fair it has less than half capacity as well but I'd say you can reload an M1 in less than half the time it takes to reload an M1918A2), slower rate of overheating due to semi-auto action instead of full-auto... in the very least, an M1 Rifle is just as good as an M1918A2. If you need to be on the move, the M1 Rifle is outright superior. I hate that on Rising Storm, the M1918A2 can be shoulder-fired but the Type 99 LMG and that 6.5 Arisaka LMG (Type 93 or Type 96 or something like that?) can't be shoulder-fired.

Actually yeah, I just looked it up! Type 96, 9kg! 9kg is 19.8lb if my math serves me right. The Type 96 is LITERALLY within about 1lb in difference from the M1918A2! Granted the Level 0 and Level 25 versions of the M1918A2 don't have that fuck-huge and ridiculous bipod, which lightens it a bit, but still! If an M1918A2 can be shoulder fired, the Type 96 certainly could as well, and I dare say the Type 99 isn't terribly more heavy than the Type 96 either! It's all bullshit... if you ask me, the M1918A2 shouldn't be able to be shoulder fired in the game. That, or the Type 96 SHOULD be able to be shoulder-fired. Type 99 LMG is 23lb, 4lb heavier than the M1918A2.

>>32417649

Start a new thread, copy and paste everything, and we can discuss it there

>>32414694
>so light you can use it one handed while carrying the upper torso of a corpse as a shield.

Only if you're a big guy

>>32417129
It was really outclassed in WWII but in WWI it was a gamechanger, it was perfect for when it was made as an automatic rifle, not so much by WWII.

I will say this, despite its short comings, Marines and Soldiers made it work and kicked ass with it

Dror is better.

File: Coltmonitor.jpg (23KB, 700x164px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 700x164px

>>32412001

Linky for anyone interested:

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1929

File: IMG_8167.jpg (828KB, 1587x640px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 1587x640px

Not using based Lewis gun with 90rnd pan mag.

>>32414694
Sauce please

>>32407778
I own one. I would never carry that in combat unless it was my last option.

Way too heavy and ammo capacity is not only too low, but a fully loaded bandolier of BAR mags weighs almost as much as the damn gun.

Its the type of thing that the Squad Leader would assign to the biggest/strongest guy in the squad whether he liked it or not.

>TRADOC still uses M60s and we made the 6'2 ripped black guys carry them.

>>32408131

t. 395-pound pudgelord

>>32419205
>nasty girl in charge of sounding like a cockworshiping weakling
You did it.

>>32415819
What is that? FNAR?

>>32414310
I came here to say grease gun

>>32419205
>TRADOC still uses M60s
Nope!

>>32419205
TRADOC doesn't use m60s you fag, shut up. Also if you actually knew shit, its the smol fags that get the MG

File: 1283039170.jpg (145KB, 1144x827px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1144x827px

I'd have gone with the M1 Carbine, light weight, handy, higher capacity magazine and could carry more ammo than the Garand, and still effective out to 300 yards.

>>32420765
jam o matic

>>32420437
Hcar

>>32409305
Underrated post

>>32414655
Fuck yeah, bank robbing goodness

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (224KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1920x1080px

Just give me this and mosin

>>32415292
>>32415303

They aren't all the same. For the AK mags as pictured, you essentially load all the "empty" slots, close it up, and turn a key that looks like it belongs on an antique tin soldier three full revolutions. The drum is now charged.

I had to watch a YouTube video the first time I did it, and I feel no shame.

>>32420864
This.

The Mosin Nagant was superior to both the Endfield and Mouser rifles.

>>32415336
Folks are gonna duck, whether it's 30-06 or 9mm Luger.

File: 1481157457333.jpg (48KB, 422x422px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 422x422px

>>32420900
>The Mosin Nagant was superior to both the Endfield and Mouser rifles.

>>32419183
Hacksaw Rdige

>>32421017
The M1 car bean was the best though.

>>32420784
Fuck
Off
With
That
Meme
Tier
Bullshit.

File: SAM_0700.jpg (1009KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 1920x1080px

>>32421065
the you need vursal is the best maker of the m1 car bean.

File: SAM_0717.jpg (590KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1080x1920px

>>32420765
>still effective out to 300 yards.
as someone who owns a form of the carbine and have shot plenty of WWII guns. I can say you are wrong about that, That guns really isnt that much out past 150yds, the sights suck, and the caliber leave you wanting more. Dont get me wrong it can still kill a man but its effectiveness severely drops after 150yds. If i wanted something light weight i would go with Winchester 97 or a grease gun. If i wanted a gun to carry across Europe i would go with a Garand. If i wanted something for the pacific i would go with the 97. But thats just my opinion.

>>32415819
Nice deer senpai. What state was it shot in?

>>32415380
what's the meme? sorry for stupid

File: Intervention_MW2.png (538KB, 749x614px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 749x614px

>That range

>That stopping power

>>32415354
>citations needed the post
>evidence needed the post
>I make shit up or anti-American the post

>>32419214
>i can carry heavy stuff with no problem
>lol you're a fat fuck

Shit, are you gonna tell me that 10% body fat is obese also?

>>32420765
Good call. Also, is it just me, or does that look like a TT-33 next to that M1 Carbine?

>>32420784
Meme.

>>32421254
So you talk about the M1 Carbine not being much past 150yd (even though there's vids online of an M1 Carbine being taken to 300yd), but then mention two firearms that you would prefer. Both aren't as accurate as an M1 Carbine, both are heavier, and both use far heavier ammunition. 30 rounds of .45 ACP weigh 1.5lb without the magazine, and 15 12 Gauge shells also weigh about 1.5lb. The firearms might be ok (and the M3 truly is, at best, 'ok' in the weight range), but the ammo is shit-tier for weight. Believe me, I love me some 230gr slugs, but in my opinion a primary firearm in .45 ACP is pants-on-head, smear-shit-on-your-face-for-camo retarded. 21 rounds per pound for ammo that's going maybe 900 ft/s from an SMG barrel? 150gr 7.62 Nato is about 18 rounds per pound... 230gr .45 ACP is LITERALLY almost the same weight as full sized rifle ammo, heavier than 123gr M43 7.62x39 which is about 30 rounds per pound, yet it's just a pistol cartridge. .45 ACP in a side-arm? Fuck yeah, go for it, I'm hard for the M1911A1 all day long, but in a primary firearm for which you'll be carrying several mags? Hah, fuck that. With M2 Ball .30-06 and 230gr Ball .45 ACP probably having similar weights, but with en bloc clips being lighter than M3 mags, you may very well be able to carry as much ammo for an M1 Rifle as you can with an M3 Grease Gun. Look at the M1903! Only about 8lb, they use stripper clips which are likely even lighter than en bloc clips. An M1903A1 could probably carry more ammo than an M3 Grease Gun. Yeah, I know, I know, it's just a bolt action, but you get my point; the M3 ain't light, and a lot of it is because of its ammo.

For a light loadout, the PPS-43 is pretty much God-tier with ammo that's lighter than 9mm, and magazines that are SUPER simple and SUPER cheap, likely also being very light due to all sheet-metal except for the spring.

File: Tornado.jpg (16KB, 300x230px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x230px

>That range
>that stopping power

>>32414712
Historical Accuracy

File: download.jpg (53KB, 661x496px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 661x496px

>That range
>That stopping power

>>32421810
Citation/evidence needed for what? It's a big post. If you're referencing how the BREN is in some ways better than the MG42/34, here's a few points:

>Lighter
>Can change barrel with bare hands
>Faster to reload
>Takes longer to overheat due to slower rate of fire (compared to MG42)
>Ammo lasts longer due to lower rate of fire (compared to MG42)
>Less felt recoil due to lower rate of fire (compared to MG42)

Obviously there's downfalls compared to an MG34/42, like how they're belt fed so if being fed with long belts they don't need to reload as often, and it's easier to 'swipe' targets with an angled burst of ammo with a higher rate of fire due to there being fewer 'gaps' between rounds. Higher RPM is a double-sided sword; there's benefits and there's drawbacks, though personally I think for an LMG, higher rate of fire has mroe drawbacks than benefits, which is why you don't see 1000-1200 RPM LMGs being used everywhere nowadays, but assault rifles are almost universally beneficial over bolt actions or even battle rifles, which is why anyone who CAN get assault rifles generally make them standard-issue.

For SMGs though, to go back to the issue of rate of fire, I believe the pros outweigh the cons for a high rate of fire. For a 6lb+ shoulder-fired firearm shooting PISTOL ammo at full auto, it's not going to be anywhere near as terrible at 1000 RPM or so as full sized rifle rounds at that rate. Overheating won't be as much of an issue either, and due to the ammo being generally lighter than rifle ammo a submachine gunner can carry more ammo so using it up more quickly isn't as terrible as someone with an LMG and rifle rounds. So that's why I think the PPSh-41 having such a high rate of fire is more of a benefit than a drawback. Meanwhile, the MP40's nice and calm RPM of less than 10 rounds per second, which it'd probably be beneficial on an LMG, is kind of unnecessary in an SMG. 1000 RPM with select fire available is superior than 500 RPM in full auto only

>>32421862
... a loaded M1918A2 is over 20lb, and a human torso complete with head, what's that going to be, 80lb? If it's just 60lb I'd be surprised. Not only that, and this is kind of a big deal...

FMJ ammo can punch through a human torso, even pistol ammo, espcially FMJ, let alone FMJ rifle ammo, which is what the vast majority of soldiers in WWII used; FMJ rifle ammo. So a human torso would no better save your life than a body pillow with your favourite anime girl on it. Stick that on your 'Pomf~' and smoke it. Also, while the body count of both World Wars were terrible (there's been around 2000 deaths on average every day for the past 2 years and 5 months or so... one century ago during WWI, and there will continue to be on average about 2000 deaths a day for 1 year, 10 months, and almost 20 days when WWI reaches the 100th anniversary of it ending on Nov 11, 2018), I don't think battlefields truly seen that kind of widespread killing in such a short amount of time. Maybe on the Eastern Front at times, but the Western Front or Pacific Theatre? I'm dubious. That movie seems to have videogame-level rates of death, which is often just run-and-gun bullshit which is unrealistic.

>>32421840
>>32420784
>>32421160
If you're calling meme tier on M1 carbines jamming, you haven't shot M1 carbines. I've shot seven different carbines now, and all of them have jammed (along with one that liked to slamfire - that was nice). I would guess the reason is that the bolt doesn't close with any authority, so it tends to not get cartridges up the feed ramp, but they just aren't reliable guns.

And before you say anything, three of those were originals. And, also, read combat reports, which often decry the carbine as being unreliable.

Don't get me wrong, I love the carbine for being light and handy, and for being AESTHETIC, but I wouldn't trust my life on one - less for the power, more for the "I don't expect this to fire more than two shots.

File: SDC10202.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>32422703
Old as fuck pic, but yes, I've owned and shot an M1 Carbine before. That one was made during WWII, and clearly refurbished at some point. Granted I only shot 190 rounds out of it, but had 0 malfunctions. They seen use in WWII, possibly even more use in Korea, continued to be used in Vietnam. I have heard about reliability issues in frigged/freezing conditions, but otherwise no, I've heard (and have experienced) that they're quite reliable. I realize that 195 rounds is hardly noteworthy, but even if in the next 5 rounds I got one malfunction, 1 jam in 200 rounds doesn't sound like a 'jam-o-matic' to me. 5 jams per 1000 rounds fired doesn't sound good, but it's not a deal-breaker either. It was a cheap, light, and respectably accurate carbine. I had no problems whatsoever getting it 'to fire more than two shots'.

Like I said though, I had experienced no malfunctions in those 195 rounds, and if it indeed had a tendency to jam, according to you, about 7-8 times per 15-rnd mag, then I doubt it would have seen as much production as it did, nor do I think it would have managed to find its way into front line service which I hear it occasionally did in all three wars it was widely used even though it's meant to be for rear-echelon troops.

Speaking of 150yd and further...

M1 Carbine with 110gr .30 Carbine has a velocity of...

1900 ft/s at the muzzle
1665 ft/s at 50yd (45m)
1455 ft/s at 100yd (90m)
1138 ft/s at 200yd (180m)

So at 150yd it's at around 1300 ft/s or so. 110gr at 1300 ft/s. Sounds very comparable to 9x19mm, but with a .30 cal bullet instead of .35/.38. Also sounds comparable to 7.62x25 which would use more of an 85-95gr bullet as I recall, but with a velocity of more like 1400 ft/s from a TT-33.

971 ft/s at 300yd (270m)

110gr at 971 ft/s, getting pretty low now. Comparable to 7.62x39 at about 600m. More powerful than .32 ACP at the muzzle. About the same as .38 Special at the muzzle, but smaller.

870 ft/s at 400yd (360m)

>>32422703
>bolt doesn't close with any authority
it needs new springs.

>>32421840
>even though there's vids online of an M1 Carbine being taken to 300yd
just because someone shot it out that far doesnt mean it will be lethal out that far.
>grease gun
not that light but very portable, if i wanted a portable small gun.
you are thinking of this as if you will alway be shooting out past 50yards, sometime you will be shooting within 5. Its a submachine gun not an intermediate caliber, which .30 carbine is not. Its actually classified as a pistol caliber. You think this is a weight issue but it isnt. Im not upset about carrying a 8lb gun but if im going for small and manageable i will take the grease gun which is more reliable and is full auto. Stop thinking weight matter as much as...
>reliability
or
>size relative to manageability.
if i want something small and portable i will go with a grease gun.
>winchester 97
a shotgun just works as a pretty good infantry gun.
>light weight, shut your mouth because it is. Ive carried the 97 hiking.
>reliable
>STOPING POWER
>effective well out to 100yds
*note i didnt say accurate
>incredible STOPPING POWER.
>just as easy to carry as the carbine
>sights actually work and dont move on their own.
>not a bitch to field strip.

I would rather lug around a BAR all fucking day than put life in the hands of the carbine. Thats coming from a guy who's only semiauto rifle at the moment is a carbine, next gun i get will be a AR/AK/? but i will not going to war with a carbine if i dont have too. Its honestly one of the least effective small arms in US service during WWII.

>>32423148
>find its way into front line service which I hear it occasionally did
yes in the hands of soldiers who had a purpose other than standard infantry, like mortar crews.

>>32421413
.30 can be stopped by a thick winter coat. It's of course not true.

>>32415255
hail hydra

>>32420900
>The Mosin Nagant was superior to both the Endfield and Mouser rifles
not only can you not spell but you have also never fired any of these rifles

File: 1468617805409.jpg (245KB, 570x845px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 570x845px

>>32414566

>>32423154
An 8lb firearm? Only while unloaded. 30 rounds of .45 ACP is 1.5lb. A loaded Grease Gun is going to be a solid 10lb or so.

>Shotgun is a pretty good Infantry gun
I think I'm done here

>M1 Carbine not lethal at 300yd
Even though I JUST said it's comparable to .38 Special at the muzzle? Yup, I'm double done here. At this point I'm just being trolled. Keep hating the M1 Carbine all you want, but you're delusional. I'm waiting for you to suggest the M1 Carbine can't penetrate frozen clothing, but I guess I'll never know because I won't be reading your replies. But hey, another person on the internet stopped replying to you. You can mark another 'tick' on your list of 'Internet Battle Victories'.

>>32423262
Gonna have to agree. Mosin and Mauser had the same capacity, same 90 degree bolt turn, same cock-on-close style of action, same short-radius tangent sights, and so on.

Lee Enfield had a smoother bolt that's cock-on-close and with a 60 degree bolt turn, twice the capacity, the No.4 had long-radius aperture sights, and even a free-floating barrel. The barrel band merely kept the top hand-guard attached to the stock. Also, having the ability to store your cleaning kit in the buttstock is very nifty, which neither the Kar98k nor M91/30 was capable of. The No.4 also had a thicker barrel. As I recall, the No.4 Mk.I of WWII was made to be able to shoot 2MOA from the factory, and the later No.4 Mk.2 had to manage a minimum of 1.5MOA I think. Something like that. The M1 Rifle and Mk.III* supposedly had to reach a minimum of 3MOA.

>>32411160
>I'm sure you'd love carry 21 pounds across Europe
no, just in england.
fun fact: the only people that complain about the weight now are people that will NEVER carry anything in combat.
no one bitched about the weight(other that those that bitch about EVERYTHING), because there were so few other options.
do you know or have you ever talked to a B.A.R. gunner from that time period? I have, and they would confirm that there were never enough to go around.

>>32407778
I'd rather 8 lb M1 Garand than a 20 lb BAR.

File: 21 pounds.jpg (197KB, 791x816px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 791x816px

>>32425935
>>I'm sure you'd love carry 21 pounds across Europe
>no, just in england.

>>32425943
I love the M1, but it wasn't 8lb, buddy. Solid 10lb or so, especially when loaded (8 rounds of .30-06 is about half a pound, or possibly a little more). Still, better than the BAR in most situations, and in others, pretty much just as good as a BAR.

>>32421840
This whole post screams autism

>>32426800
PPS-43 with 9 35-round mags in total. About 305 rounds if memory serves. Weighs about 20lb. Light as fuck, cheap as fuck, and the folding stock can make them compact as fuck. For an M3 "Grease Gun", call it 8lb for the SMG, 2lb per 30-rnd mag (1.5lb for ammo and .5lb for steel mag), that's 6 mags in total; one in the firearm and 5 spare. 180 rounds, and it's 20lb. PPS-43 gets literally over 50% more at roughly the same weight, possibly a little lighter.

As for the M1 Carbine, at 300yd (270m) it'll be comparable to .38 Special at the muzzle, so still quite lethal if the shots are placed well. Yeah, they're NOT going to be placed well because it's REALLY reaching out there for it, but at least it's capable of reaching that far unlike basically every SMG available in WWII besides the M2 Carbine. I'd take an M1 Carbine over an M3 "Grease Gun". I mean, it doesn't even have adjustable sights.

But yeah, legitimately, I might be autistic. Haven't been diagnosed but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out I was.

>>32414912
30-06 would fucking rek a zero if the pilot was in its way or the engine was in its way.

Fuel too if you have tracers or incendiary.

>>32427017
M2 Ball .30-06 is literally basically the same as M80 Ball 7.62 Nato. You think it's a .50 BMG or something? Shattering engine blocks?

>>32426897
You have to remember that the M1 carbine did not have adjustable sights until after the war. That's the type 2/3 upgrade. They only had a flip adjustment.

>>32427682
Enough rounds of .30-06 put into the engine could make it sieze, but I doubt a single round would do much without a retarded amount of luck.

>>32414310
>just give me a Grease Gun M3A1 with 6 magazines and I will still be lighter then a BAR

No range tho.

>>32428817
If you hit the fuel system near or on the engine, magneto or oil cooler one round could easily down a WWII aircraft but not instantly take it out of action. Aircraft tend to be soft and delicate, dedicated ground attack birds sometimes excepted, and you can't armor them everywhere.

I'd prefer an MG42, reminds me I should consider joining hjemmeværnet (the local weekend warrior group) since they use MG3, and the dude i spoke with said they usually make the new kids carry them anyway.

Don't care that it's 12kg, my boner would be hard enough to carry it.

>>32407778
too bad it was a piece of shit rifle that weighed over 9000 pounds and had terrible combat sights

I got to shoot a semi auto build one, and it was both heavy as fuck and heavy recoiling. I'd way prefer a submachinegun or a M1 rifle.

>>32420454
>>32420473
>im an enlisted piece of shit and never went to officer training

good job privates, now go clean out the drip pans in the motor pool.

>>32429024
Guess it being in service for like 40+ years/several wars makes your point invalid.

>>32421036
Really?

File: W.A.R.png (3MB, 1906x1068px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1906x1068px

>>32407778
Posting Superior Replacement that got cucked by the atom bomb
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RvpWYBDruE

>>32431516
I wanna say this is over the top and bullshit but knowing what Ive read and heard about the Pacific War I wouldn't be surprised if the fighting got this brutal in Okinawa

>>32417793

For you.

Ok this has been bothering me fucking forever, did US Infantrymen have that much heavy shit that carrying their primary weapon was an inconvenience? That's all I ever read on /k/ about American WW2 small arms "its heavy" except for shit like the M2 SMG and M1 Carbine. Though with a M1 people really want to trade stopping power and range for a couple pounds off their load?

>>32407778
Why didn't they make a larger clip for this? I mean for a support weapon, 20 bullets is not a lot for suppressing fire.

>>32431658
Why would they make a clip for something magazine fed?

>>32431638
A lighter weapon is easier and faster to bring to use and to use in fast moving combat. Also both SMGs and the M1 Carbine have far greater capacity than the Garand.

>Stoppin' power
Memes

>>32431658
It was when you're invented in a time when bolt action rifles reigned and had around 8-10 rounds max (a.k.a WWI)

Basically it makes you the man who has 20 rounds and auto capability to keep the other cunts down.

>>32431723
Come now, its not a meme that .30 Carbine is a shitty round.