Why wasn't a lightened version of the BAR created instead of the Garand?

[twyacht]

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.

[Overload]

BAR fires from an open bolt.  Great for full auto, bad for accuracy.  Garand is a rifle, fires from closed bolt.

[billt]

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.  

[tombogan03884]

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.

[billt]

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.

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

IIt's a great and fun toy, but I certainly would not want to carry one in battle.  Bill T.

AMEN!

[r_w]

 

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.

[billt]

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.

[wtr100]

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

[billt]

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