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? (Ad-free) (Patreon)

Published:
2022-07-26 12:01:02
Imported:
2022-09

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.

Files

Ask Ian: Why Not a Semiauto BAR Instead of the Garand? (Ad-free)

Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.forgottenweapons.com 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. Contact: Forgotten Weapons 6281 N. Oracle 36270 Tucson, AZ 85740

Comments

Minion

7:09 "...let's bypass that issue..." As we say down here "Yeah... nah". Separate video, perchance?

Terry

Great explanation.

ViejoLobo

And yet they went with an en bloc 8 round feeding system that could not be clip loaded-- clips already in inventory for the 1903 and 1917. Unlike the later Johnson which could be so loaded. Or the M14. Incidentally, don't remember the source, but recall reading years ago that one reason for the flush self-contained magazine was to permit holding the rifle at the balance point, very important for drill.

Anonymous

Agreed, but if they'd introduced a 12.5lb semiauto BAR before WWII it probably would have performed better than the full auto version. 16lbs is a lot if weight for something with a 20 round magazine!

Anonymous

Let me just say I really enjoy these more in depth answers. I also like the hour long Q&A videos, but these just seem like better, higher quality answers.

Guido Schriewer

and the enblock is outstanding. the bar... man they should have rethink that BEFORE the 2nd.

Gary Chuven

Military could have used the Winchester 1907. Modified to fire 30.06 round. I understand that France, UK, and Russia used limited quantities in WW1.

ForgottenWeapons
>>88413170

There is no way to convert the 1907 to .30-06. It's a simple blowback action, and the bolt would have to be ridiculously heavy to not explode in -06.

Fruitbat44

Great question from Jack, great explanation from Ian. I guess this a matter of history. The semi-automatic military rifle was in it's infancy, and while today it's incomprehensible for such a weapon to run off anything other than detachable box magazines, back then clip or charger loading was the, tried-and-tested, way to go. As an aside the German WW2 (and I believe the Soviet) semi-auto rifles would use detachable 10 round box magazines, but could also be fed by chargers. The idea for a military semi-auto rifle to be able to be converted to a bolt-action rifle "at the flick of a switch" seems bizarre. I guess this was due to concerns about new technology. Speaking as an armchair weapons expert, what the US should have done was to have adopted the M1 Garand, but feeding off of 20 round BAR magazines. Relegated the BAR to rear echelon use and adopted a proper light-machine gun. Say a US version of the ZB26. Maybe?