Tgunner | 12 Sep 2015 6:19 a.m. PST |
The HCAR Turns A New Page In BAR History After serving almost half a century as America's first squad automatic weapon, the BAR was eventually replaced by the M14. The M14 never worked out very well in the role because it lacked the durability of the BAR and invited cook-offs since it fired from the closed bolt. In the 1980s, the role was filled by the M249 SAW, which did fire from the open bolt, yet many of the design lessons learned from the BAR were forgotten. There is no primary extraction, and the barrel is so lightweight that a second one must be carried to avoid cook-offs. The M249's quick-change barrel feature is handy but contributes to the marginal accuracy of the design. The M249's belt feeder is very reliable, while the back-up magazine feed is not. As for terminal effects, neither the 5.56x45 mm NATO M249 nor the 7.62x51 mm NATO-firing M14 have the punch of the .30-'06 Sprg.-chambered BAR. The BAR is chambered for a cartridge that today's modern militaries no longer use. As the gun is fully automatic, this precludes most civilian ownership. As a result, nobody thought about the BAR anymore. Nobody that is, except for Bob Landies, owner of Ohio Ordnance Works. Bob envisioned a semi-automatic BAR variant and believed there was a market for it. The conversion from an automatic firearm into a "street legal" semi-automatic is no easy task. There are two components to the process: First is the mechanical conversion into what is hoped to be a reliable semi-automatic. The second is to pass examination by the Technology Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). The BATF conducts a thorough examination to convince itself that there is no easy way to convert the rifle to fully automatic fire. It is this second component that presents a serious design challenge. Landies' company had already distinguished itself by developing semi-automatic variants of full-automatic arms and breezed through the ATF review. Once the semi-automatic M1918 SLR design was approved, the gun went into production…
Old is the new new??? Sounds like an interesting idea. I wonder if the Army would consider a return to the traditional .30-06 round? There have been complaints that the 5.56 and the 7.62 just don't have the punch that they need. The .30-06 was the round that got the US through two world wars and Korea. I don't remember ever hearing about Doughboys and GIs complaining about the round's punch. Maybe it's time? Here's a link to the article. It's a full write-up of the BAR and mentions the newest versions of this old reliable. Good stuff! link |
Ed Mohrmann | 12 Sep 2015 7:07 a.m. PST |
Wonder if the 5.56 and 7.62 effectiveness have been hindered by protective vests and if the .30-06 has been tested at today's combat ranges for its penetration versus PV's. The Garand (and assumably the BAR) had a very stout recoil but if snugged in tight and forward, no problem. Weight of ammo has to be borne in mind, also. The .30-06 cartridges in the standard unit of fire weigh much more than the 5.56. |
Ivan DBA | 12 Sep 2015 7:27 a.m. PST |
Punch is less important than volume of fire (and suppressing bad guys). A semi-automatic BAR would be a big step backwards from the SAW in terms of volume of fire (which is why the SAW, and before it the automatic BAR were included in a squad). |
Legion 4 | 12 Sep 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
I do like the extra firepower the squad would/should get. And a fully loaded M16 weights @ 7.6 lbs. and a fully @ M14 = 11.5 lbs. I remember it well … Now the Mech (M113 APC) Co. I commanded, '87-'89, each 11 man squad had a lot of fire power. Each 5 man Fire Tm had : 1 M203 GL, 1 M249 SAW, and M60 MG or M47 MAW Dragon. Everybody else including the SL carried an M16 + some packed extra ammo for the M60 or M47. Plus the track had the M2 .50 cal. Now if understand it correctly the Infantry Squad has 9 troops instead of 11. Realizing the M2 Bradley IFV has the 25mm Bushmaster and TOWs. But with the M2 IFV there is a 3 man crew, the dismounts are reduced to 6. As opposed to the M113 that had a 2 man crew. Reducing dismounts to 9. Don't get me wrong. The M113 leaved a lot to be desired. Would rather have had an M2 with an 11 man squad. So all in all. Where is the new BAR supposed to go in 6 man dismounted squad ? Each 3 Fire Tm would have 1 M203, 1 M249, + 1 M240 MG (replacing the M60 MG), or Javelin or the new BAR ? Only the track crew carries M16/M4s ? Or what weapon systems are you going to get rid of that the new BAR would replace. I like the M203s, M249s, M240 and Javelin ? (Was glad they dumped the cumbersome M47) One of the M249s or M203s or … ? IMO you need an 11 or even 12 man squad … The USMC still uses a 13 man squad with three 4 man Fire Tms ? Could an M2 IFV carry 11 or 12 men ? |
Garand | 12 Sep 2015 7:59 a.m. PST |
I was under the impression that a Bradley Mech inf squad still had 9 troops per squad, but the platoon deleted the weapons squad (the Brads would serve that role instead), just retaining the 3 rifle squads… Damon. |
Noble713 | 12 Sep 2015 8:10 a.m. PST |
The USMC still uses a 13 man squad with three 4 man Fire Tms ? Yes. Could an M2 IFV carry 11 or 12 men ? I highly doubt it. Even 9 men in full combat gear is probably a stretch. |
Legion 4 | 12 Sep 2015 8:17 a.m. PST |
I was under the impression that a Bradley Mech inf squad still had 9 troops per squad, but the platoon While I was on active duty '79-'90, the US ARMY Infantry did not have Wpn Plts … All the weapons were in the Squad/Fire Tm. We talked about this on another TMP thread. Here's what I posted. In my Rifle Plt in the 101, '80-'81, we had 3 Squads of 11 troops each + a 3-4 man Plt HQ. Each Squad had two 5 man Fire Teams + 1 Sqd Ldr. Each Fire Tm had one M203 GL, and either an M60 MG or M47 MAW "Dragon". No SAW/AR, the Army's solution was to put a "clothes pin" bipod on a designated M16. That was your SAW(?)! I know … WDF huh? The Rifle Company was supposed to have 3 Plts, but only had 2. Plus an 81mm Mortar Plt. With 4 tubes, IIRC, and of course a small Co HQ – 5-6 men. Each Plt had a Medic attached from HHC. When I commanded Mech Co.(M113) '87-'89. The Squad was similar to in the 101, but each Fire Tm also had an M249 SAW. So 1 M203 GL, 1 M249 SAW, and either an M60 MG or M47 MAW. Plus an M113 with an M2 .50 Cal HMG. Each Mech Plt had 3 Squad Tracks(M113s) + 1 M113 Plt Cmd Track. The Mech Co. had 3 Plts + 2 Cmd M113s. One for the Co. Cdr and one for the XO. So a total of 14 M113s. Plus an Anti-Armor Section of 2 M901 ITVs. No mortars at Company level like in the 101. As well as an M35 2&1/2 Ton Cargo Truck and M151 Jeep. Later replaced by a HMMWV in '88. Also each Plt had a Medic M113, IIRC (?). Plus a Maintenance Tm of 1 M113 and an M578 VTR(Vehicle Tracked Recovery). Both from HHC. If anyone remembers it differently, please let us know. As I'm old and forget …
I highly doubt it. Even 9 men in full combat gear is probably a stretch.
Yes, I know it is a bit of a rhetorical comment. Even in an M113 we were a bit cramped ! Some of the troopers rode on top with their legs dangling in the troop hatch … |
Sir Sidney Ruff Diamond | 12 Sep 2015 8:41 a.m. PST |
This is mostly British but I believe the concept applies to the US to. 7.62 has made a come back in sections (squads for US) since Afghanistan where regular combat ranges were greater than the 5.56 could cope with. 5.56 is still the standard round but a new role of designated marksman was introduced to use a new 7.62mm rifle and allow longer range engagements. The British use the Lewis Machine Tools rifle not sure what the US uses. These are not snipers and not sniper rifles but an intermediate step that allows an individual in a section to accurately engage an identified threat. The rest of the section will still use 5.56. The GPMG or as used in the US the M240 is a regular section/platoon weapon again for the same reason. British LMT link This is a good video on the original post. Comparing the new to the old. I'd love to have one. link |
donlowry | 12 Sep 2015 9:43 a.m. PST |
The trouble with the 7.62 .30-06 was that it was too powerful for fully automatic fire from anything much lighter than a BAR. The M14 was to replace the M1 Garand, not the BAR. The concept was borrowed/stolen from the German MP43, using a standard caliber bullet with less powder behind it. (But still used more powder than the MP43.) The M60 LMG took over the BAR's roll. The M16 5.56 was originally intended as a replacement for the M1A1/M1A2 Carbine, which definitely lacked punch. But in jungle-type terrain, such as in Vietnam, the M16 had sufficient range (and plenty of punch at short ranges because of its high velocity) and, being lighter, with lighter ammo, soon replaced the M14. |
Mako11 | 12 Sep 2015 10:48 a.m. PST |
Man, that is one ugly gun. Seems to me the AR-10 would be a better option than the BAR, since I suspect it would be a lot lighter. Even the heavy BAR was extremely difficult to control, on full auto (like impossible). I think gunners were trained to try to fire three-round bursts with it. Now, they have tech to permit that to be selected automatically. From the bit I've read, the Bradley's are very cramped already, so adding more troops inside them probably isn't an option. Either add more troops in additional tracks, or switch out a rifleman for an AR-10. |
Prof Pate | 12 Sep 2015 10:50 a.m. PST |
IIRC there is a new 'lightweight' automatic weapon for the British about 2/3rd of GPMG but using 7.62. See MAXIMI There is much discussion over the value of loads of rounds vs fewer. Yes every infantryman wants more ammo BUT it's no bl***y use if the bad guys (whoever they maybe) inconveniently use longer range weapons than your own. Suppression on a potentially hostile bush 100m shy of a PKM isn't going to win any firefights. Handguns were widely issued (to everyone!) for v. close range combat as were shotgun. Issue as always is due to a compromise. 7.62 doesn't really work for urban combat according to 'western' military theory. Tell that to the AK47 wielding character down range. Every since Vietnam the 'West' has lacked high punch weapons for infantry, basically the AK47 and derivatives plus RPG are the best set up for a squad. I've just finished reading Australian Official History from there and the number of times Battalion commanders say in their internal report that they are outgunned by NVA and want an RPG of own. I wonder if arms companies were worried about being sued by Soviets? Grin All best John FoA |
paulgenna | 12 Sep 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
The Marines AAV can carry 26 infantry men but only comfortably for a short period (ship to shore). If the troops will be in there for any length of time, then supplies and 13 Marines are carried. |
Legion 4 | 12 Sep 2015 12:17 p.m. PST |
Yes, we trained with those at Basic Amphib Training at Little Creek. When I was with the 101 … US ARMY and USMC cross trains often. We found them "roomy". But we were used to being squeezed inside Hueys. |
Noble713 | 12 Sep 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
Issue as always is due to a compromise. 7.62 doesn't really work for urban combat according to 'western' military theory. Tell that to the AK47 wielding character down range. Keep in mind that the AK fires 7.62x39. MGs/precision rifles/etc. use 7.62x51 (NATO) or 7.62x54 (Russian). Much larger cartridges with more recoil. |
Legion 4 | 12 Sep 2015 1:32 p.m. PST |
Yes having carried and fired both. There is a noticeable difference in 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 … |
cwlinsj | 12 Sep 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
I've fired a BAR, it is an antique, a curio. It is not meant for modern combat @ 20lbs, 20-rd box mags. A BAR gunner can only carry 12 mags =240 rounds after 12 reloads. Better solutions exist. BTW, there was a full-auto M-14 originally issued, which was meant to replace the BAR although the M-60 did take-over in the SAW role by Vietnam. |
cwlinsj | 12 Sep 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
I've fired a BAR, it is an antique, a curio. It is not meant for modern combat @ 20lbs, 20-rd box mags. A BAR gunner can only carry 12 mags =240 rounds after 12 reloads. Better solutions exist. BTW, there was a full-auto M-14 originally issued, which was meant to replace the BAR although the M-60 did take-over in the SAW role by Vietnam. |
Lion in the Stars | 12 Sep 2015 8:05 p.m. PST |
Cool, a civilian-legal BAR. Now I won't have to spend like $20,000 USD to buy the full-auto version. No, I'm not joking. Full Auto is legal in the US, you just need to spend $200 USD in taxes and then find someone selling what you want to buy. Can't build any new full-autos for civilian ownership since 1986, so the price for a full-auto Thompson (semi-auto price $1,600 USD) is more like $20,000. USD Think I've seen a MG3 for sale at $36,000. USD But if you're going to go with a bigger gun than 7.62x51 for the military, step all the way up to .300WinMag (as in M2010 Enhanced Sniper System link ) or .338 Lapua. Step up to 6.5mm for the basic infantry rifle and SAW/GPMG. Something about as powerful as the 6.5mm Arisaka or the 6.5mm Carcano, they're plenty powerful for mankilling. Gives you good range for the MG and good hitting power for the infantry. Costs you a bit in terms of rounds per unit weight compared to 5.56, but the increased range and hitting power make up for it. Then use .338 Lapua or .338 Norma for the weapons platoon's MGs (and any sniper rifles). link .338 Norma has about the same ballistics as the Lapua, the case is a bit straighter for better feeding in an MG. .30-06 is too powerful to put a controlled burst on target from a shoulder-fired weapon. Even an area target. |
Legion 4 | 12 Sep 2015 10:23 p.m. PST |
BTW, there was a full-auto M-14 originally issued,
Heard about but never saw it … But the M16 was already in full issue by that time. |
Martin Rapier | 13 Sep 2015 2:08 a.m. PST |
Since when is 7.62, a round which comfortably carry through a few concrete tower blocks, "too light"? |
Legion 4 | 13 Sep 2015 8:10 a.m. PST |
Always liked that feature … only superceded by .50 cal. |
troopwo | 13 Sep 2015 8:23 a.m. PST |
Funny, FN made the BAR into the late fifties and even offered it for sale into the early sixties in 7.62 NATO. All ammunition is a trade off of some sort. Range, weight quantity, accuracy. 7.62 NATO is a fine round for range and accuracy, only it weighs more and I can say that I spent many a day as a young lad on the range with my FN. A day on the range is reme,bered by the bruising. I also remember the time it took to come back from the recoil to re-aquire your target. 7.62x39 is cheap and plentiful. a great deal for the shooter who wants to go fire a lot for little cost. Only the accuracy drops off tremendously after 200 yards. 5.56 is actually incredibly accurate as an ammunition. You can carry lots and the recoil allows fast foollow up. Lethality drops at extreme ranges, but that is ok, most people are inexperienced shooters and not capable of shooting much beyond three hundred meters anyway. A lot of folks moan on about hitting power and being enough force to do damage. Funny because you would think from that kind of talk a man would need a 105mm HESH practice round to drop a deer or something. All of this is even more strange given that the US forced the UK to stop experimenting with intermediate rounds in '57. Ever since then, the US has been investigating everything that they forced the UK to stop! The .280 for the EM2 was all the rage in the mid fifties. Go back far enough and there was another experimental .276 and a .280 for the P13 of 1913. I always wondered why no one hasn't simply taken a good look at the swedish 6.5mm Mauser again? Weight vs accuracy vs quantity vs power,,, a never ending fight. |
CeruLucifus | 13 Sep 2015 11:43 a.m. PST |
The interesting thing to me in that article is the quote from a 1918 era army document after the BAR was deployed under its original name of BMR. The gun will be used for the most part as a rapid firing single shot weapon … In cases of emergency where the ammunition can be supplied, and where a large volume of fire is necessary, this gun will be fired automatically. Apparently it was always recognized that the BAR couldn't be controlled in automatic fire, and the expectation was that it would be used as a semi-automatic weapon except for emergencies. Then … … in 1938 an improved version was issued, as the Model 1918A2. This BAR eliminated the semi-automatic setting, replacing it with a low rate-of-fire position providing 350-500 r.p.m., where single shots could be fired with trigger control. |
brass1 | 13 Sep 2015 1:13 p.m. PST |
Heard about but never saw it … But the M16 was already in full issue by that time. Actually, it wasn't. At the the time the M-14E4 was introduced, the M-16 was only issued to units in Southeast Asia. I did my training in Basic and AIT with M-14s and was, of course, immediately sent to Vietnam (1969) and issued a weapon for which I had received a single day's orientation. I returned to the world and was issued an M-14, which my unit continued to train with for over a year before we were switched to M-16s, again with no training. Personally speaking, the M-16 and M-16A1, the only ones with which I am familiar, were weak undependable junk. On my second tour in Vietnam, I carried a 12-gauge shotgun. LT |
Legion 4 | 13 Sep 2015 2:47 p.m. PST |
Well I came into the military, a little later than you did. I should have made that clearer. I was an ROTC Cadet, '75-'79. And for the first few years we were issued M14s for training … Thank you for your service in Vietnam … When I was a PL in the 101, '80-'81, we trained with Remington 870 Assault Shot Guns. They even had a Bayonet luge. But our newer Bayonets didn't fit. Probably a good thing … |
Jemima Fawr | 13 Sep 2015 3:55 p.m. PST |
SLR???!!!!! There can be only one!
|
Lion in the Stars | 13 Sep 2015 7:13 p.m. PST |
Yeah, that's another fun fight, Kyote. My answer is that if you're limited to non-expanding ammo, you want the one with the biggest hole. Folks able to use expanding ammo can rely on 9mm Luger or even .380ACP without much loss in stopping power. Since when is 7.62, a round which comfortably carry through a few concrete tower blocks, "too light"? Since the snipers on the hilltops in Afghanistan can hit our guys in the valleys, but our guys have to call in mortars or arty to hit the snipers back. It's why the Lightweight Medium MG I wikilinked to earlier exists. |
cwlinsj | 13 Sep 2015 9:10 p.m. PST |
I agree that Western troops need something in .308+ to hit out to farther ranges to engage enemy fire, but trying to hit enemies at over 300yards with an auto BAR isn't the way to do it. The BAR was originally purchased in WWI to give Doughboys a portable weapon to sweep enemy trenches at contact range. Pretty much every trooper can do that nowadays already. |