Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
Patreon importer is back online! Tell your friends ✅

Ask Ian: Why Not a Semiauto BAR Instead of the Garand? (Audio Only) (Patreon)

Published:
2022-07-26 12:00:05
Imported:
2023-01

Downloads

Content

From Jack on Patreon: "Why did the US go on to develop the M1 Garand instead of continuing development of the BAR?  With the BAR you already have a self-loading rifle with as much firepower as later battle rifles of the Cold War (such as the M-14), including detachable 20 round magazines.  Why not just try to make a lighter weight, possibly semi-auto only BAR instead of starting over from scratch?"  

There was one proposal to do something pretty much like that in 1919, but it was rejected by the Infantry-Cavalry Board for a couple reasons: 

 - The BAR was not really capable of manual operation in case of malfunction

  - The BAR was too heavy  

- The BAR was not clip-fed  

We can see more by looking at the 1921 RFP for a new US Army semiautomatic rifle. Among the requirements were a strict weight limit of 9.5 pounds and a requirement for a clip feed holding between 5 and 10 rounds. The US military saw box magazines as undesirable for a service rifle, as they held the rifle too high up off the ground, among other reasons. In addition, they rightly saw that it would not be practically possible to reduce the weight of the BAR by 40% and retain the proven, reliable characteristics of the design. While it's not explicitly stated anywhere, it seems like the idea was that if Browning thought he could produce a shoulder rifle version of the BAR, it should be proposed as a new design alongside the Garand and Hatcher/Bang systems then in development.

Comments

Anonymous

I love the M1 Garand but have often wondered why it was not made into a 20 round magazine fed rifle. And I suppose that the answers are the same as stated here; weight and not clip fed. I have seen that several attempts were made to make it magazine fed but were never accepted. It seems to me that the additional weight would be minimal compared to the increased firepower. With regards to not being able to get low in the prone, from WW II films, I have never seen a soldier or Marine get as low as I know is possible. I suspect that it's the same reason as in the past, the people in charge were always a generation or two away from the current combat soldier and they felt, "They didn't need that kind of rifle when I joined the army and so I don't know why they need it now."

Anonymous
>>88354727

I suspect it was influenced by logistics and training just as much as a combat effectiveness question. The enbloc, while not just a flat piece of metal, is substantially easier to make in quantity, fewer tolerances to adhere to, is packed conveniently ready to go and is essentially disposable in a way that a magazine typically isn't. Although the combat effectiveness of 20rds is higher, it may not have been high enough at the time for consideration given the operational lift needed to support it. The 20rd rifle magazine comes back post WWII with the various battle rifles, but I also find it telling that most of them can also feed off stripper clips, retaining the ability to pivot to a much more economical solution.

Anonymous
>>88354727

In 1967, I was issued a M14 and I guess that's why I'm still puzzled why the M1 wasn't made with a BAR mag. I think that it had to take 20 years for the old fogies of pre-WW II to be replaced by more modern thinking people. We had to be shown the way by the Soviets and their AK47.