The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: wtr100 on February 22, 2011, 12:09:03 PM
-
just got to thinking ...
-
You talking about Garand to M1 Carbine? I image its because it would be very difficult to lighten it up to fire .30 cal used at the time. And I guess any sub rifle round at the time would have just made it pistol carbine, like the M1 Thompson or M3, and redundant.
-
It would have required a complete redesign of the weapon. The BAR was designed to be heavy to handle the full auto fire it was designed to supply. This made the basic design impracticable for application as a general issue rifle.
Texas Bryan obviously did not understand the question since the M-1 Garand and the BAR fired the same 30/06 ammo.
It is worth noting that the Johnson rifle initially used by the Marines, was designed as a modular weapon system firing the same 30/06, but required a somewhat different design to handle the Automatic rifle role of the BAR, and while it initially was a better rifle than the Garand, it was much more expensive to manufacture and did poorly in the light machine gun role.
-
the garand - the BAR was around in what 1918?
but it was a heavy beast and crazy expensive to build
-
It would have required a complete redesign of the weapon. The BAR was designed to be heavy to handle the full auto fire it was designed to supply. This made the basic design impracticable for application as a general issue rifle.
Texas Bryan obviously did not understand the question since the M-1 Garand and the BAR fired the same 30/06 ammo.
and what if the Springfield had been designed round 308 vs 30-06
-
and what if the Springfield had been designed round 308 vs 30-06
Doesn't matter. .30 caliber rifles suck in full auto. The reason only limited numbers of M-14 were full auto was because they were darn near uncontrollable. the only way to overcome that is by increasing weight or going to a lighter recoiling cartridge.
-
Doesn't matter. .30 caliber rifles suck in full auto. The reason only limited numbers of M-14 were full auto was because they were darn near uncontrollable. the only way to overcome that is by increasing weight or going to a lighter recoiling cartridge.
It was built because it sounded good on paper (everyone else was doing it). As is often the case, reality does not match theory.
BAR was hard/time-consuming to make, not easy to ramp up production to meet demands of WWII.
-
It was built because it sounded good on paper (everyone else was doing it). As is often the case, reality does not match theory.
BAR was hard/time-consuming to make, not easy to ramp up production to meet demands of WWII.
Maybe not, but they did it any way .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
Between 1917 and the 1950's thy built 100 thousand of them, not counting variants built under license.
-
the garand - the BAR was around in what 1918?
but it was a heavy beast and crazy expensive to build
I had heard that about the Thompson before, but not the BAR. The primary complaint of the BAR was always its weight - 20+ pounds fully loaded. But my oh my, what an effect when it went off! ;D
-
M1 production peaked in January 1944 with 122,001 M1s produced that month
-
FN also found out that full auto 7.62x51 (308), in the FAL were very uncontrollable and they "lightened" it compared to the BAR.
For every give there is a take. Want full auto thump full auto .30 caliber rifles??? With control? ?????Add weight.
Full auto 30-06 was and is a beast. But a helluva game changer.
-
BAR fires from an open bolt. Great for full auto, bad for accuracy. Garand is a rifle, fires from closed bolt.
-
You can't lighten a .30-06 BAR and expect to hit anything with it because it will be uncontrollable. In the 60's new versions of military weapons were all about weight. All of a sudden, to this present day, weight is a big issue that wasn't in both World Wars. We had to get rid of the M-14. Why?, weight. We adapted the M-16. Why?, weight.
The problem with this kind of thinking is it will only get you so far. In Viet Nam the shots fired to kill ratio went through the roof because GI's were blowing through ammo like crazy, hitting nothing in the process. Marksmanship went out the window in favor of "firepower". The problem with firepower is it is worthless if you don't hit anything, which our troops seldom did in Viet Nam. They sure did go through the ammo trying. And they did so in a weapon that was very "controllable".
In W.W.II the M-1 Garand held 8 rounds, and could not be topped off until it was empty. We won 2 wars in 2 separate theaters of operation, halfway around the world, in 2 totally different climate settings. Everything from steamy, rain soaked jungles to freezing European forests. Today we've yet to win a war with the M-16 platform. Yes, that can be attributed to other things as well, but my point is all of this "firepower" reasoning is flawed at best, false in fact. Look at todays police departments. Are they killing any more bad guys with 17 round Glocks and 20 round Sigs, than they did in the 50's with 6 shot revolvers?
Marksmanship, along with having a round that was lethal at long range helped us win in both World Wars. This line of thinking is now making a resurgence in our military, as a great number of M-14's are being brought out of mothballs, and brought back into service. The demand for them by our soldiers in Afghanistan is very high because of the range potential. These guys are hitting, but not killing with the M-4 at longer ranges. The M-14 in capable hands changes that outcome almost instantly.
These guns all weigh more. That doesn't seem to be of much concern today in Afghanistan as it was 45 years ago in Viet Nam, when Robert McNamara thought the M-16 was the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread in the grocery store. Weight in large caliber firearms is not always such a big deterrent. I don't see anyone trying to market a "light" .50 BMG. There is a reason for that. Bill T.
-
You can't lighten a .30-06 BAR and expect to hit anything with it because it will be uncontrollable. In the 60's new versions of military weapons were all about weight. All of a sudden, to this present day, weight is a big issue that wasn't in both World Wars. We had to get rid of the M-14. Why?, weight. We adapted the M-16. Why?, weight.
The problem with this kind of thinking is it will only get you so far. In Viet Nam the shots fired to kill ratio went through the roof because GI's were blowing through ammo like crazy, hitting nothing in the process. Marksmanship went out the window in favor of "firepower". The problem with firepower is it is worthless if you don't hit anything, which our troops seldom did in Viet Nam. They sure did go through the ammo trying. And they did so in a weapon that was very "controllable".
In W.W.II the M-1 Garand held 8 rounds, and could not be topped off until it was empty. We won 2 wars in 2 separate theaters of operation, halfway around the world, in 2 totally different climate settings. Everything from steamy, rain soaked jungles to freezing European forests. Today we've yet to win a war with the M-16 platform. Yes, that can be attributed to other things as well, but my point is all of this "firepower" reasoning is flawed at best, false in fact. Look at todays police departments. Are they killing any more bad guys with 17 round Glocks and 20 round Sigs, than they did in the 50's with 6 shot revolvers?
Marksmanship, along with having a round that was lethal at long range helped us win in both World Wars. This line of thinking is now making a resurgence in our military, as a great number of M-14's are being brought out of mothballs, and brought back into service. The demand for them by our soldiers in Afghanistan is very high because of the range potential. These guys are hitting, but not killing with the M-4 at longer ranges. The M-14 in capable hands changes that outcome almost instantly.
These guns all weigh more. That doesn't seem to be of much concern today in Afghanistan as it was 45 years ago in Viet Nam, when Robert McNamara thought the M-16 was the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread in the grocery store. Weight in large caliber firearms is not always such a big deterrent. I don't see anyone trying to market a "light" .50 BMG. There is a reason for that. Bill T.
That is not a valid argument. The Korean War was fought with Garands and was at best a draw. (especially considering it is still going on) While Iraq, which was fought with M-16 variants can be chalked into the win column.
The weaponry used is not relevant . the deciding factor in all of these cases was the will of the national leadership.
-
The Korean War was fought with Garands and was at best a draw. While Iraq, which was fought with M-16 variants can be chalked into the win column.
If we would have had the M-16 in Korea nothing would have changed for the better. Iraq is hardly a win anymore than Korea is, (was). If we pulled out of either place it would go to hell in no time at all. When we leave Iraq it's people will hold nothing we have established for them. It will be besieged by terrorists in no time at all, and they will car bomb the country into total destruction. It will make Lebanon like like paradise. It damn near does now.
The fact of the matter is the M-16 along with the tactics introduced with it, improved nothing as a service rifle. It was pushed into service too early, and has never been an adequate performer. It was sold as "better", when in fact it was worse. Proof of that is we are still trying to design "better" versions of it a half century later. Without much success I might add. As an urban patrol rifle for police departments it may have some merit, or as a security rifle for MP's and the like. But as a battle weapon it's list of failures is all but endless, and continues to this day. Both the weapon itself and it's anemic cartridge. Desert Storm as well as the Afghan Campaign have just added to it's list of failures. In short the weapon is a dog, and a very expensive one at that. There has never been a weapon in our inventory that has compiled a list of issues and problems over such a long period of time and battles as the M-16. It's a great and fun toy, but I certainly would not want to carry one in battle. Bill T.
-
IIt's a great and fun toy, but I certainly would not want to carry one in battle. Bill T.
AMEN!
-
There has never been a weapon in our inventory that has compiled a list of issues and problems over such a long period of time and battles as the M-16.
It also is the longest lived service rifle in our history. It is going to have a 50th here soon.
-
It also is the longest lived service rifle in our history.
That in itself is the major source of the problem. Along with the ability to invent something better. A bit like the issues that surround the Space Shuttle. All of the good inventors are dead. Bill T.
-
BAR fires from an open bolt. Great for full auto, bad for accuracy. Garand is a rifle, fires from closed bolt.
I didn't know that about the BAR
That's probably why they didn't just make a smaller semi-auto version of it
-
That's probably why they didn't just make a smaller semi-auto version of it.
They do. Ohio Ordnance builds it. Bill T.
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/Firearms/OOWExclusiveFirearms/1918A3_SLR.rif
-
That in itself is the major source of the problem. Along with the ability to invent something better. A bit like the issues that surround the Space Shuttle. All of the good inventors are dead. Bill T.
Not "dead." Just beaten down.
We are too afraid of failure to succeed.
-
We can succeed, it's just it won't be with the M-16 platform as a standard service rifle. Bill T.
-
I was thinking in general. It is a combination of the fear of failure and the extremely fast ROI expected on investments (caused by both the investment community and IRS rules).
-
They do. Ohio Ordnance builds it. Bill T.
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/Firearms/OOWExclusiveFirearms/1918A3_SLR.rif
Thats full size just converted to Semi like the MG 42's, RPD's and 1919 Browning .30 cals that are all over.