>20rd capacity >Heavy >Long >Big recoil >No semi-auto

>>34097256
American GI don't get knocked over by 9mm recoil.

>>34097256
hows the weather in australia today "mate"

>>34097261
???
The BAR was .30-06

>>34097271
He was implying other countries servicemen can't handle rounds above 9mm.

>>34097256
Cause our dicks are big.

>>34097256
Why waste money on new small arms when you can spend it on nukes and tanks?

>>34097256
America built a fuckoad of them around WWI, so when round 2 rolled around, they dusted them off and handed them out.

You use what you have.

>>34097256
>what the fuck is LMG?

>>34097256
It was designed for WW1. We just had a ton of them left over so they were used in the next war. We even gave them out to helicopter, and mortar crews in Vietnam.

We just used them for so long because we had them. Also it's not that heavy. Lift some fucking weights

SMGs and assault rifles can't do what a LMG does, that said it had a really low capacity for a LMG but it was put into use for a role it wasn't intended for

>>34097364
It was also ahead of its time in WW1, but we rarely issued them at the time because we were worried the enemy would replicate them. Look it up

>>34097256
After ww2 Us military had to do alot of budget cuts because you know peace and stuff while at the same time developing the nuke arsenal and dealikg with theoreticians questioning whether there would even be need for conveniental weapons with nukes being a thing. It wasnt until Korea happened that those people were proven wrong too.

>>34097381
>Worrying that your enemy would replicate your shitty gun when they have the buzzsaw and the mp-40

>>34097419
>MP-40
>WWI

File: image-title1.jpg (202KB, 912x1200px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 912x1200px

>>34097256
It was more than good enough for Clyde.

>>34097442
>You could order a BAR or Thompson, full auto from a hunting catalog in the 20s and 30s

>>34097256

>20rd capacity
Lower rate of fire, and can still carry the same total number of rounds.

>Heavy
It's lighter than the Bren and Type 99

>Long
Are LMGs supposed to be short?

>Big recoil
Less recoil than competitors.

>No semi-auto fire
Wrong.

File: clyde barrow's scattergun 2.jpg (334KB, 1238x350px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1238x350px

>>34097442
This

The BAR is great

The BAR worked well enough and we didn't want to spend a shitload of money making a new thing OR buy a not-American thing.

Several countries modernized the BAR during the interwar period. Hell, Colt did too, but we didn't bother to do it at the military level because it would've been too costly and we were obsessed with the BAR being a rifle as well as an LMG instead of a dedicated LMG.

As for SMG's, they came into their own during the interwar and WWII period. Our Thompson, while effective, was expensive, which is why it was eventually replaced with the Grease Gun. Assault Rifle development was effectively halted because the US refused to bump down the power of their standard ammunition.

That said, LMG's in full power ammunition make sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJs6expvT8

>>34097717
But we did modernize the BAR between wars. And By modernize, I mean we added 5 extra pounds of bullshit to it, without making it work better, fixing the sights, or fixing the mags

>>34097717
Even polacks had manufactured their own BAR during the war called rkm wz.28

>>34097771
Modify =/= Modernize

I've only used them in realistic video games like Darkest Hour but...it accurately puts a lot of large bullets down range fast, like an MG plus it's a lot more handy and portable than LMGs like the M-1919, MG-34, MG-42, etc. No need to set anything up, just bring it to your shoulder and pow! Great gun for suppressing an enemy position or stopping an infantry assault. Plus, its handiness means you can do cqb stuff with it like clear a building. The Army was considering using them as their standard rifle after WWII but weight was the main disqualifying factor.

>>34097814
kys

>>34097578

>Filename

That's not a scattergat

File: 1478921363460.png (177KB, 436x361px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 436x361px

>>34097256
>20rd capacity
why would anyone think this is a good idea?

I remember reading somewhere that during the Normandy landings, GI's would toss their BAR's away because they were shit guns and try their best to get their hands on an M1 Carbine.

>but muh stopping power
honestly, the handling and ergonomics of a weapon are more important, especially when your average infantryman has to lug it with them for days on end.

File: 7c6.png (202KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 600x700px

>>34098004

That's a collosal level of fuddlore

>>34097256
I used this thing for its purpose in Rising Storm, so I know why it existed:
Keeping a spot clear that you don't need a fucking .30 MG to cover. It's better than an M1 or a bolt action because it's full auto, and you're not going to be full auto all of the time.
Oh and we had a shit ton of them and not a lot of production early war

>>34097960
Clyde called his BAR his 'scattergun' because it made cops scatter when he shot at them with it. Read up, nerd, it's interesting and pretty fucking /k/: http://www.range365.com/guns-bonnie-clyde

>>34098019

It makes sense though, look at the Marines for instance abandoning the SAW in favour of the M27. Literally no one wants to carry a heavy weapon.

>>34098004
>I remember reading somewhere that during the Normandy landings, GI's would toss their BAR's away because they were shit guns and try their best to get their hands on an M1 Carbine.
>>but muh stopping power
>honestly, the handling and ergonomics of a weapon are more important, especially when your average infantryman has to lug it with them for days on end.
That's funny, I read flags of our fathers. Bradley said that everyone wanted to have a BAR guy with them

>>34098019
>>34098004
literally any story where it's "DURR SOLDIERS WOULD THROW AWAY THEIR GUN AND GET ANOTHER GUN BECAUSE IT WAS BETTER" is massive fuddlore and you know people who say it have no idea how the military works. the most outlandish things soldiers did with their guns was taping m1 carbine mags together, you can't just throw your equipment away because you didn't like it and if you asked to get another piece of equipment the answer would probably be "no" because you don't get to choose.

>>34098109
Having a BAR guy =/= being a BAR guy

>>34097979
One bullet would often be enough

>>34098116

I doubt the average boot gave a shit about protocol and issued weapons in the middle of a firefight.

The BAR had its uses but it was ultimately unwieldy and not as well suited to urban combat as an SMG

>>34098004
>Americans would throw away their BAR's
>British would throw away their Stens
>Japs would throw away their dust covers
This "troops just fucking threw away their guns" meme needs to fucking die. Yeah, sure, you're gonna just fucking toss your gun into a river in the middle of a warzone and be left without a gun at all because "m-muh gun is shit"

File: image.jpg (59KB, 332x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 332x480px

>>34098193

>soldiers never used captured weapons or anything other than what they were given.

>>34097979
>designed at a time when vast majority of rifles had 5 to 10 round mags.

They probably thought they were being too generous.

>>34098193
I remember hearing about Canadian troops """trading""" their shitty Ross rifles for the first Enfield they could lay hands on, because a gun that jams every other shot is better than no gun, but a gun that actually works consistently in the conditions and with the ammo you have is better than that in turn. It makes sense in that context because those rifles filled the same role with the same ammo and were issued by the same forces, but one was significantly better than the other.

>>34097748
The thread should have ended here. Essentially the rest of the replies are just bait.

File: 1492836769902.jpg (70KB, 709x639px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 709x639px

>>34098102

Why the fuck would anyone throw their gun in the ocean during the D-Day landings?

because dudes in the 1920s were a foot shorter than you and they still weren't pussies

>>34098102
Funny, because that's not what theyre doing. They don't want to carry 22 magazines either, nor do the want to die because they didn't bring enough gun and robbed themselves of a huge asset

>>34098156
Yeah in the middle of a firefight they're going to abandon they gun that they already trained for, and the ammo they're already carry and their role in the squad while UNDER FIRE to pick up another gun off the ground. Just like when you hold down the button on your controller right.

Don't get me wrong, troops would happily scavenge gear but they didn't throw away their own to do it

>>34098208
And that's not what he said at all

Filled its role as a SAW and did it well during WW2 and Korea. The Army and Marines adapted and made good use of the weapon.

File: 1942ColtM1911A1No798021left.jpg~original.jpg (77KB, 792x594px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 792x594px

>>34097256
>7rd capacity
>Heavy
>Long
>Big recoil
>Less chance of consecutive hits
>Retarded disassembly
>Le JOHN BROWNING'S GIFT TO MAN meme
Fuck this gun man, why was America okay with using this thing up to the 80s when there was a better option as early as the 30s?

>>34098510
>Fuck this gun man, why was America okay with using this thing up to the 80s when there was a better option as early as the 30s?

we know you're being a cunt and all but you actually still have a point there. it's a shit gun with it's only redeemable feature being that you can tune the trigger to be really good - in the eyes of trigger autists at least.

>>34098510
>why was America okay with using this thing up to the 80s when there was a better option as early as the 30s?

Because Americans are stupid...?

>>34098004
>during the Normandy landings, GI's would toss their BAR's away because they were shit guns and try their best to get their hands on an M1 Carbine.

They'd throw away a shitty gun and go pick up a shitty gun ok

>>34097419
Lol, try shooting an MG42 standing up, you fucking twat. Try to win a firefight with an MP40 from further than 75 yards. The BAR fits right between the two weapons you listed. Derrrrr.

>>34097461
That sounds so smazing.

File: 636763_t.jpg (27KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 200x175px

>>34097364

>Sucking BAR hardcore
>Will use every argument possible to say for the time it's pretty fucking good
>Meanwhile shit on French made Chauchat and forget every arguments about the BAR
>mfw

File: 1276479-difficulty_doom.png (27KB, 580x290px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 580x290px

>>34098510
Trolling 1911fags is too easy, step up your game.

>>34097748
>festooned like the frito bandito

Art is based

>>34098235
IIRC, most of the Canadians ditched the Ross even before they made it to the front as well.

>>34098208
They're really not supposed to.
>be Americans in WW2
>find cache of MP40s and start using them
>other squad hears the distinctive sound of an MP40
>they kill the shit out of you
True story. I think it also happened in Nam when some dumbass found an AK

>>34097256
it wasn't meant for manlets like you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJs6expvT8&index=2&list=FL78cbLktPNM-NVyuZRjokXg

File: m14bipod2.jpg (68KB, 700x448px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x448px

>>34097256
>My weapon in Vietnam except:
>"Jungle sling"
>Taped magazines(20 rd.)
>Full auto pulled up and right.
> 15 lbs when fully loaded
>blade sight. Not that good for combat shooting, but:
>Deadly when you had the time time and a target.
>Confirmed kill at 300 yds out.

>>34098004
>Be G.I. on D-day
>Stuck with shitty BAR
>Too Heavy
>20 Rounds
>Also my only weapon
>Ramp lowers
>Immediately throw only weapon away
>charge enemy emplacement with knife and grenades
WW2 confirmed for source engine FPS.

>>34097342
This