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

[wtr100]

 just got to thinking ...

[Texas_Bryan]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[wtr100]

the garand - the BAR was around in what 1918?

but it was a heavy beast and crazy expensive to build

[wtr100]

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

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

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.

[r_w]

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. 

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Pathfinder]

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! 

[r_w]

M1 production peaked in January 1944 with 122,001 M1s produced that month