# BAR vs Garand



## Thorlifter (May 15, 2017)

My limited understanding is the BAR was a 30-06 caliber rifle, but so was the Garand. So what is the tactical advantage of the BAR? Same bullet and a much heavier weapon to drag around. 16 lbs vs 9 lbs. I know the BAR had a bigger clip but that sure doesn't seem worth it.


----------



## Airframes (May 15, 2017)

BAR fires full auto, so use as a section fire support weapon ?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2017)

The BAR was _rated _at about 75 rpm _sustained fire. _The BAR was almost unique in that the _selector lever_ did NOT give a choice between full auto and semi auto but rather between two different cycle rates of full auto. The slower rate of fire did allow skilled operators to often fire only one shot. Older models did offer single shot or full auto.


----------



## The Basket (May 16, 2017)

Think of the BAR as a ww1 weapon.
Which then hung around for a long time. And kinda makes sense if your in Ww2 and need a light support weapon and the BAR was popular even though it was heavy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 23, 2017)

The Basket said:


> the BAR was popular even though it was heavy.


Not too heavy for Steve McQueen to hose down a slew of snipers from the roof of a Chinese temple in "The Sand Pebbles"!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (May 23, 2017)

Not too heavy at only 16 lb. The Bren (Mk1 and 2) weighed around 25 lb loaded, with the MG 34 around the same, unloaded.


----------



## soulezoo (May 23, 2017)

The two rifles performed two very different roles. There was usually one BAR in a squad and used as a squad automatic weapon. Although quite accurate (actually on par with the Garand), it was used more for suppression fire. The weight was necessary to help handle the substantial recoil and for the barrel to survive sustained automatic fire (See differences in the FN FAL for instance with a heavy barreled version). Troops generally found it quite popular, except for the guy that had to carry it.

Of note, a shortened version of it was the preferred weapon of one Clyde Barrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame. It provided superior firepower and overreach compared to anything else available including the Thompson Submachinegun.

While the Garand was used more as aimed accurate fire, the BAR was more of a support weapon.


----------



## Airframes (May 23, 2017)

Yep, roughly the equivalent to the Bren in the British Army, which was used as a Section fire support weapon, an infantry Section in WW2 normally consisting of 10 men - 8 riflemen and the Gun Group of 2 men.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 23, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not too heavy for Steve McQueen to hose down a slew of snipers from the roof of a Chinese temple in "The Sand Pebbles"!



Or for Clyde Barrow to seriously out gun the police who were after him.

IIRC the posse that finally killed him (and his floozie) had some BARs of their own, which was just as well as Barrow and Parker had five in the car with them.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## The Basket (May 30, 2017)

The BAR is not a light support weapon. It became one. So it's use was more the fact of availability. Its short capacity and doesn't have a quick change barrel work against it. It offers a true auto fire capabilities with a bigger magazine so better than the Garand but at a disadvantage against other autos.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2017)

Define "light support weapon"? 

The BAR was NOT a proper Light Machine Gun. But not all light support weapons are light machine guns. a term that is somewhat flexible itself. 
Using modern day terminology sometimes does not help as we are applying modern terms and thinking to an old situation. 
The light machine gun was less than 25 years old at the start of WW II and the Automatic machine gun, in comparison to the hand cranked guns carted about on light field carriages, was only about 50 years old. The LMG is now over 100 years old. 
Modern perceptions while in some cases helpful, don't tell us what the military leaders were thinking in the 1930s as to what a certain weapons role was. 
There are manuals for the BAR on line, including training classes for use and tactics. There are pages devoted to engaging moving vehicles at distances (400-600yrds?) and other tactical problems. 

The BAR was also not at such a disadvantage against some other nations "squad" weapons. It was not in the same class as the Bren or MG 34 but it doesn't look that bad against the Breda 30, the French M24/29 (sort of an upside down BAR?) the German MG 13 or some of the early Japanese guns. The Russian M1928 also had a few flaws.


----------



## The Basket (May 30, 2017)

A 3 legged donkey is a better machine gun than a Breda 30.
The BAR is a weapon in service for a long time so maybe it was a rifle in ww1 then automatic fire support in Ww2.
The terms light support or light machine gun are certainly not helpful. 
Heavy rifle?


----------



## soulezoo (May 30, 2017)

It was an automatic rifle.
The comparisons being made, in my humble opinion, are not fair comparisons. Like (as appropriate to this forum) looking at a Ju 87 and a B-17, calling them both bombers and asking which was better?

One thing to remember, in being deployed as intended, a MG42 or M1919, required 3 or four men to deploy. (I realize they are not part of the conversation, but listed for context/comparison) a Bren, while carried by one, required 2 men-- again "properly deployed" -- not necessarily as some did as they had to. (someone has to carry those "extra barrels" and extra ammo or that's not an advantage at all, is it?) The BAR was strictly a one man show.

Question, in terms of normal combat load (not what was done in extraordinary circumstances), how many total rounds of ammo did the one man carrying the weapon tote on his person for both the BAR or the Bren?

Of note: I am not advocating one weapon is better than the other. I'm just saying they performed different, even if overlapping, roles.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2017)

The BAR was NOT a one man show, at least not in the late 30s or 1940/1.

It was a three man weapon in prewar doctrine/training.

320 rounds were carried in the squad "on the March". 80 rounds in 20 round magazines by the "automatic rifleman", 120 rounds carried by the "assistant automatic rifleman" and 120 rounds by the "ammunition carrier" all in 20 round magazines. 40 rounds was also carried by each ammunition carrier in either 5 round or 8 round clips depending on the type of rifle the squad was equipped with.

The unit ammunition train held 852 additional rounds were carried by units equipped with M-1s and 860 rounds by units with 1903/1917 rifles. Before combat 468 additional rounds were to be issued from these totals to the squads equipped with M-1s leaving 384 rounds in reserve with a further 576 rounds held on the ammunition train of a higher echelon unit. total ammo in the Battalion was 1720-1748 rounds per BAR in rifle companies.

BARs were also issued to anti-tank companies for local defense and as pintal mounted AA guns on some trucks (this didn't last until combat?) with lower ammo allowances.

Of the 468 rounds issued before combat 100 rounds went to the "automatic rifleman" and 80 to the "assistant automatic rifleman" all in 20 round magazines. The "assistant automatic rifleman also got 96 rounds in 8 round clips in bandoleers, while the ammunition carrier got 192 rounds in 48 round bandoleers (8 round clips).

This is from a listing published in July 1941 so what the actually did in combat may have been totally different, but the battalion was carring over 5 times as much ammo per BAR as they were for an M-1 (328 rounds total per rifle) and over 8 1/2 times as much ammo per BAR as for a 1903/1917 ( 200 rounds total per rifle) the totals include carried by the individual, carried on unit ammunition train and carried on higher echelon ammunition train.

Numbers juggle around a bit for units equipped with 1903/1917 rifles as the bandoleers held 60 rounds instead of 48.

Given the manpower and transport devoted to the BAR It is very hard indeed to see it as an individual weapon or _just _a substitute M1 that could fire full automatic.

The terms "automatic rifleman" "assistant automatic rifleman" and "ammunition carrier" were used in the original document.


----------



## soulezoo (May 30, 2017)

Actually SR, what you posted is fairly accurate. Although the GI's I have spoken to that used BAR's told me that they largely carried 360 rounds on them and "maybe" they might get a guy to carry another bandoleer but that was iffy-- because the guys didn't want to carry the weight and also they tended to disappear-- with your ammo-- at first contact. Hence, my comment about being a one man show. The last BAR operator I spoke with (actually a Korean War vet, a Marine using a BAR told me this yesterday) told me twelve 20 round magazines in the box pouches that were belt mounted (six individual pouches carrying 2 magazines each) on your waist, six 20 round magazines in a bandoleer across your chest (also told they might carry as many as 3 of those bandoleers if they could stand the weight and knew they were getting into something-- but not normally) and plus the one magazine in the rifle. At the very least if they were not expecting anything, he had to wear the belt of 12 plus one on the rifle... that's 260 rounds minimum. Of .30-06. Damn. Most I carried was 9 mags of 5.56 of 30 rounds each (270 rounds) and that's a whole lot lighter!


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2017)

A lot of weight. Again semantics and even worse military jargon but the BAR was a team player. Your marine must have been big guy to carry that weight plus his own kit. 
Use of the BAR by Korea is an odd one by then but it was seen as reliable and dependable and not as heavy as a proper light machine gun.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 31, 2017)

The BAR came in several models and weight changed a bit. The M1918A2 version could hit just about 21lbs without sling. 
Make sure the weight is for the right model and that the weight includes bipod (2.38lbs) magazine (.44lbs) and ammo. 
Some guns had a carrying handle and some did not. The wooden fore-end varied in size. Some guns had a mono-pod under the butt in addition to the bi-pod, this was soon dropped from production in WW II. 
Actual combat use in WW II changed the both scale of issue and the combat tactics/doctrine. This assumes that the troops in field actually followed the manuals/doctrine to begin with. The Marines ended the war with three BARs per 13 man squad. I have no proof but I tend to doubt that they provided quite the number of magazines and spare ammo per gun as the Army was providing for single gun in 1941. See my previous post. in the summer of 1941 the Army was providing a total of 25 magazines per BAR for 500 rounds in magazines. The rest of the ammo was in either 5 round stripper clips or 8 round enbloc M1 clips and had to be stripped out of those clips and loaded into the empty magazines. Not something somebody wants to be doing in a fire fight although doable in lulls. 
:When talking with Veterans you are getting how they or their unit did something at a snapshot in time. Not always army doctrine and certainly not army doctrine/training over a 45 or even 10 year period if you include Korea. 
Please note that the US Army often had a pair of tripod mounted Browning M1919A4 air cooled machine guns in each infantry company in addition to the water cooled M1917 guns in the Battalion MG company. The US Army also had 60mm mortars at the company level so while squad/platoon fire power might be down a bit company fire power did receive a helpful boost.


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2017)

To answer original question on further reflection and thinking.
The BAR and Garand are different enough to justify both to exist at same time. The Garand cannot replace the BAR although the M-14 could.
Perhaps


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2017)

A


----------



## Shortround6 (May 31, 2017)

This is what it took for an M-14 to _try _to replace the BAR.





It didn't work very well.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 3, 2017)

Did the M-14 work well?
The BAR was available.
And available goes a long way.

However... The Bren was better than the BAR and the BAR should have been replaced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2017)

The M-14 worked well as a semi-automatic rifle. It was as a full auto that it didn't work. It was too light and had more cooling problems than the BAR.
The BAR was replaced by the M-60. Magazine fed LMGs or squad automatics had gone out of fashion. 
The M-60 was another can of worms.


----------



## glennasher (Jun 18, 2017)

The BAR was popular all the way into Vietnam, I know a man who carried one from time to time, and the ARVNs used them, too. The BAR has a very distinctive sound when fired, it drew attention to itself fairly easily, which didn't endear it to the man carrying it, if he didn't need it really badly. 
They were pretty reliable, but postwar tests claimed that other opposing arms were more reliable. That depends on what and who you read, like anything else.
I know that listening to one going boomboomboom is a very comforting thing.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 21, 2017)

An issued military weapon gives the average soldier 2 choices.
A) Like it.
B) Lump it
So the BAR was what it was and it certainly was functional so it wasn't the worst. And the poor sod who carried at Iwo Jima or the Bulge wasn't given the option of a Type 96 Nambu. 
A Garand with a 20 round magazine would have been lighter so it's certainly a trade off. And offered similar firepower.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2017)

The Basket said:


> An issued military weapon gives the average soldier 2 choices.
> A) Like it.
> B) Lump it
> So the BAR was what it was and it certainly was functional so it wasn't the worst. And the poor sod who carried at Iwo Jima or the Bulge wasn't given the option of a Type 96 Nambu.
> A Garand with a 20 round magazine would have been lighter so it's certainly a trade off. And offered similar firepower.









a Garand with a 20 round magazine has much less firepower than a BAR. It is much more prone to overheating and malfunctioning. It would have much more movement in automatic fire which means much more dispersion, Rounds going 20ft (or more) over the intended target/s don't have much effect. 






see this site for a history of the 20 round full auto Garand. The Select-Fire M1 Garand Rifle

I would note that less than steller brains requesting this after the Japanese invasion was no more didn't seem to learn from experience as size/weight of the rifle was lowered to as much as 7.5lbs in some requests while keeping the same power cartridge.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2017)

has anyone actually carried the BAR and fired it. I haven't, though I have fired the Bren. With such a limited magazine capacity its hard to imagine the BAR being an effective support gun. It was never designed for that purpose, but it finished up being press ganged into that role anyway.

Bit if the gun was light enough and reliable enough it could probably compensate for these inherent design shortcomings. it was designed to be carried forward with the infantry to give the Infantry some on the spot firepower in trench assaults, When designed, it had the benefit of at least what not to do after the disasters of the Chaucat..

interested to hear any first hand accounts?.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2017)

If I had been given the garand as my personal sidearm, and no other choice, I think I would have surrendered

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2017)

I am not sure where this anti-BAR stuff is coming from. 
Granted it was nowhere near the gun the Bren was but then few WW II LMGs were. 
The limits on firepower from the BAR had more to do with it's light barrel not being quick change than the magazine capacity. 
French FM 24/29




25 round magazine, fixed barrel.
Czech ZB26-30 




Used by a number of nations including Germany as a substitute standard weapon. 20 round magazine But you can change the Barrel.
The Breda M 30 used a 20 round magazine that needed big stripper clips to load.

even with quick change barrels most WW II LMGs were limited to around 120rpm for "sustained fire) which meant 2-3 minutes at that rate before changing the barrel. 
Please note that many MGs in the 1950s and 60s got chrome lined barrels or even stellite liners/inserts which allowed them to fire many more rounds in a brief period of time without destroying the barrel. Comparing these guns to WW II guns doesn't help much. 
The British, when they converted a number of Brens to 7.62 used a chrome lined barrel and dropped the use of a spare barrel. In part because the Brens were being issued to either second line troops or as secondary weapons to heavy weapons units ( artillery units) while the infantry carried MAGs. 

Russian DP machine gun.




Yes you had a 47 round pan magazine but the barrel wasn't really changeable in combat and the mainspring was under the barrel and prolonged firing heated the main spring and caused it to fail leading to the DPM machine gun in 1943-44




With the mainspring moved to the rear of the receiver.

The Bren was one of the two best LMGs of WW II (and for a considerable number of years afterwards). 
everybody elses LMGs were in a different catagory (or several categories)


----------



## The Basket (Jun 21, 2017)

Has it been decided yet if the BAR is a rifle or machine gun?
I suppose it would be the Lewis in ww1 from the British rival point of view.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 21, 2017)

My Dad was armed with the Bar for part of the time he was at Guadalcanal. Never heard him criticize it. 
From his frame of reference, having been armed with a Springfield before, he thought it was pretty effective.
But he wasn't exposed to all the finest arms from around the world to compare it with. That was what he carried, and that was what he had to make do with.

It's like me, I was armed with the M-60 in Vietnam, never knew how sorry it was until 20-30 years later when tv shows and online forums trashed it pretty consistently .


----------



## The Basket (Jun 22, 2017)

I am not familiar with the M60 so any insight you give would be appreciated.
The internet is a pernicious beast.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 22, 2017)

By my own frame of reference at the time I saw no problems with it. I took care of it, it gave me no problems.If it did misfire it was usually a round out of position in the belt, usually from a defective link. So if I had time, I'd at least give my ammo a quick look before a mission. Others may had problems but may not have been as anal as I was with the maintenance of my M-60. But I had the luxury of being in the air, not on the ground.

I fired the MG-1 or 2 ( modern MG42) when I was in Germany in the early 70's. I thought at the time that that high rate of fire might have been nice to have earlier, but I also knew that high rate of fire would have run me out of ammo a few times too.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 22, 2017)

Thanks for the info.
Thanks for your service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Has it been decided yet if the BAR is a rifle or machine gun?
> I suppose it would be the Lewis in ww1 from the British rival point of view.



Categories change over time and even terminology changes over time, often with words or parts of words left out. Let alone categories or terminology between countries. 




The 1909 Benet-Mercie _automatic machine rifle.



_
The manual goes into considerable detail not only about the "rifle" but about the machinegun company or troop. which included 16 mules and 25,800 rounds of ammo in feed strips. I would note that this was _only _a "rifle" in comparison to the pre-war tripod mounted machineguns which were being issued at a scale of 2-4 guns per battalion at the time and were about the ONLY support weapons of the infantry battalion. Once an army names something and starts printing manuals for it changing the name at a later date is seldom done. 
The BAR was only considered for "general issue" when the US was caught in the grip of French tactical/military thinking at the end of WW I when the French were preaching that the way to break the trench stalemate was to issue each soldier an "automatic rifle" and have them advance across no-mans land shoulder to shoulder (or about 3 feet apart) standing erect at a walking pace with the automatic rifles held at the hip (with a sling) and firing a burst every time their left foot hit the ground. The storm of gun fire was _supposed _to keep the defenders heads below the top of the trench so the attackers could reach the trenches with fewer causalities of their own. It was called "walking fire". 




Once this "concept" went away ( mercifully ) the BAR was a support weapon and not issued or intended as a one for one replacement for the bolt action rifle. 
See the "Pederson device" for another way of implementing the "walking fire" concept. 

the term "automatic machine rifle" was often shortened to machine rifle in order to avoid confusion with the terms full-automatic rifle and semi-automatic rifle as there had been several commercial hunting rifles before WW I that were semi-automatic. including one by John Browning. 




which did see limited military use. 




as did the rival Winchester. 
Trying to fit WW I or WW II guns into post year 2000 nomenclature/catagories can be difficult.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> By my own frame of reference at the time I saw no problems with it. I took care of it, it gave me no problems.If it did misfire it was usually a round out of position in the belt, usually from a defective link. So if I had time, I'd at least give my ammo a quick look before a mission. Others may had problems but may not have been as anal as I was with the maintenance of my M-60. But I had the luxury of being in the air, not on the ground.
> 
> I fired the MG-1 or 2 ( modern MG42) when I was in Germany in the early 70's. I thought at the time that that high rate of fire might have been nice to have earlier, but I also knew that high rate of fire would have run me out of ammo a few times too.



Thank you for your service.
From what I have read a lot of the criticism can be applied to a number of things about the design which don't actually matter that much to the men in field.

The main complaint against the men who designed it was that many of the perceived flaws had already been "solved" on other guns before the M-60 was built so their use on the M-60 is a more than a bit puzzling. 
The M-60 had a few problems with the barrel change which meant an asbestos glove was part of the official kit for changing the barrel. 
However the M-60 was one of those guns with a stellite liner or insert in the barrel which made it much more resistant to barrel erosion during prolonged firing so the barrel actually didn't have to be changed as often in combat. 
Some complaints were somewhat minor, like the fact that the front sight on the barrel was fixed and the gunner was supposed to keep the sight setting for each barrel in a note book (or memory?) and adjust the rear sight to "zero" when the barrels were changed. 
The Bren gun had front sight that was "adjustable" on the range and the gunner or assistant could swap these pre adjusted barrels in and out of the gun without taking the time to adjust the rear sight. Of course for Jungle distances or air to ground gunnery from helicopters the fact that barrel No 2 shot 6-8 in left of barrel No 1 at 100 yds wasn't particularity important. in the desert at 800yds? 
another criticism was that the numbers/markings on the rear sight were small and hard to see in poor light. Of course for close range jungle shooting this didn't matter much either. But it goes back to the front sight and the "note book". 
There were also a number of different models of the M-60 and some of these problems (like being able to put the gas piston in backwards during reassembly and turning the gun into a single shot weapon) were fixed in later models/production.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2017)

So it is generally agreed that the BAR was inferior to the BREN, the MG 34 and the MG42. Some rather unproven claims are then made as to its comparability to MGs of other nations


Lets look at some of those other nations and for comparison I chose the French M-29


For the French Fusil-mitrailleur Modele 1924 M29, no one has stepped forward to claim that they have ever used it, so the comments being made, including mine are speculative at best, most likely heavily biased, and further likely to be plain wrong


The operational reports that I have seen suggest it to be measurably superior to the BAR. The FM 24/29 was the standard squad weapon of the French infantry and cavalry at the start of WWII. After the French surrender in World War II, the Germans captured large quantities of this weapon, which they used operationally until the end of the war. I have not found any significant reports from that quarter that the type suffered any significant problems.

‘

The most significant appraisal of the type that I have been able to find is dated 1943. From 1943 on, as the French army was re-equipped and reorganized in North Africa with Allied support, the FM 24/29 was kept in service. The Free French forces which at certain points had used the BAR, submitted reports stating that overall the French weapon was considered measurably superior to the Browning Automatic Rifle and more reliable. It is significant that the French weapon had five more rounds capacity and the ability for aimed single shot fire, something the BAR apparently lacked. Barrel changing arrangements were considered superior in the French weapon


A measure of the overall success of the FM 24/29 was that it remained the workhorse in the Indochina war, and continued to serve as a front line weapon until the 1960’s when it was replaced by the AA52. Nevertheless it was still in use with National Gendarmerie regional brigades until 2006.


Heavy duty versions of the MG were accepted in 1931, in which the barrel was strengthened to extend its life. The fortress version also included a rather unique barrel cooling system. I don’t know too much information on the fortress version, but the French claimed it was capable of sustained fire for many hours. There is no way of verifying that really.


The BAR was not really capable of single shot sustained fire. It is debateable as to whether this was a disadvantage at all, but my personal opinion is that it was, not so much from a technical point of view but more a psychological one. Since WWI the US army has placed greater emphasis on firepower over aimed fire. In situations where th ere are no logistic constraints, this thirst for ammunition is probably not a significant issue, but in situations where the amount of ammunition is limited (which is often) it definitely is a problem. You have to make every shot count in those situations.


To be fair in 1931 (I think) a rate rducer began to be installed in which I have read it was possible to fire the weapon at two rofs.


The weapon had difficulty in penetrating the export market. As might be expected it was adopted in central and and sth america more or less without question. In Europe it was built under licence by the Belgians and used also by the Dutch, the Poles and the swedes. It was used second hand by the yugoslav partisans. It was foisted upon the free french, whio as indicated above disliked it. After Belgium was overrun, the factory fell into german hands. I cant find any evidence of the type being produced under German occupation, though im happy to listen if anyone has useful information on this.


The BAR was not without its critics even in US service. The US army recognised its principal limitation in the continuous fire configuration. This criticism is well documented in the US army historical records. In an attempt to overcome the BAR's limited continuous-fire capability, U.S. Army combat divisions increasingly began to specify two BAR fire teams per squad, following the practice of the U.S. Marine Corps. One team would typically provide covering fire until a magazine was empty, whereupon the second team would open fire, thus allowing the first team to reload. In the Pacific, the BAR was often employed at the point or tail of a patrol or infantry column, where its firepower could help break contact on a jungle trail in the event of ambush.


After combat experience showed the benefits of maximizing portable automatic firepower in squad-size formations, the U.S. Marine Corps began to increase the number of BARs in its combat divisions, from 513 per division in 1943 to 867 per division in 1945. A thirteen-man squad was developed, consisting of three four-man fire teams, with one BAR per fire team, or three BARs per squad. Instead of supporting the M1 riflemen in the attack, Marine tactical doctrine was focused around the BAR, with riflemen supporting and protecting the BAR gunner.


Despite the improvements in the M1918A2, the BAR there are many US army reports describing the type as a difficult weapon to master with its open bolt and strong recoil spring, requiring additional range practice and training to hit targets accurately without flinching. Again I sense the overweaning US view that accuracy was secondary. As a squad light machine gun, the BAR's effectiveness was mixed, since its thin, non-quick-change barrel and small magazine capacity, coupled with more difficult reload abilities, greatly limited its firepower comparison to genuine light machine guns such as the British Bren, or the M29. Most sources I have read suggest even the Japanese type 96 was superior in the support gun role.


The weapon's rate-reducer mechanism, introduced from 1931, was a delicately balanced spring-and-weight system described by one Ordnance sergeant as a “Rube Goldberg” device (a deliberately complex contraption in which a series of devices that perform simple tasks are linked together to produce a domino effect in which activating one device triggers the next device in the sequence). The rate reducer came in for a lot of criticism in the US army, and operationally it did cause a high rate of malfunctions when not regularly cleaned.


The bipod and buttstock rest (monopod), which contributed so much to the M1918A2's accuracy when firing prone on the rifle range, proved far less valuable under actual field combat conditions. The stock rest was dropped from production in 1942, while the M1918A2's bipod and flash hider were often discarded by individual soldiers and Marines to save weight and improve portability. With these modifications, the BAR effectively reverted to its original role as a portable, shoulder-fired automatic rifle.


Due to production demands, war priorities, subcontractor issues, and material shortages, demand for the M1918A2 frequently exceeded supply, and as late as 1945 some Army units were sent into combat still carrying older, unmodified M1918 weapons.


After a period of service, ordnance personnel frequently began to receive BARs with inoperable or malfunctioning recoil buffer mechanisms. This was eventually traced to the soldier's common practice of cleaning the BAR in a vertical position with the butt of the weapon on the ground, allowing cleaning fluid and burned powder to collect in the recoil buffer mechanism. Additionally, the BAR's gas cylinder was never changed to stainless steel. Consequently, the gas cylinder frequently rusted solid from the use of corrosive-primer. M2 service ammunition in a humid environment when not stripped and cleaned on a daily basis contributed to this problem. In summary the type suffered a thin-diameter, fixed barrel that quickly overheated, limited magazine capacity, complex field-strip/cleaning procedure, unreliable recoil buffer mechanism, a gas cylinder assembly made of corrosion-prone metals, and many small internal parts. Despite all this, it has to be said that the BAR proved rugged and reliable enough when regularly field-stripped and cleaned.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2017)

Oh boy........

Some of the capabilities of the FM 24/29 seem a bit exaggerated. Most sources say the barrel could only be changed in a shop/depot/arsenal. The way of fastening it to the receiver may very well have been better than the BAR but if it can't be changed during combat it doesn't make much difference to the troops.

We throw the term firepower around an awful lot without much for definitions or conditions. We know that cycle rate is NOT fire power, it is merely the rate at which the gun will fire with the trigger held back and as long as the ammo supply holds out (magazine or belt).

Sustained fire is one measure but most of these light machine guns were rarely used to fire 60-120 rounds per minute for 10-20 minutes at a time regardless of the number of magazines, barrels, and mounts/tripods available. German MG 34/MG 42 being about the only exception.
That leaves us with 'deliverable" firepower in a several minute firefight with a cooling off period before the next firefight. Both rather "squishy" are far as simulating or testing. In the case the 20 round magazines are a limiting factor.

Now back to "firepower". the limit on most of these guns was, as I have said before and nobody has contradicted me, is cooling the barrel/s. And by extension, the rest of the gun. Melvin Johnson once destroyed a BAR in a test in about 700 shots. Gun was fastened to a bench and magazines were changed as fast as possible with the trigger held back so all 20 rounds were fired in one burst. Barrel was glowing red, the fore end was in flames and the gun stopped firing when the mainspring lost tension and didn't return the bolt to the fully forward locked position. The Mainspring is under the barrel.
I read about a test of the French AAT M.52 with light barrel where they linked 500 rounds together and fired them in a continuous burst. Barrel was glowing red, starting to droop to the naked eye and when cool it was found to have no rifling for aprox one ft in front of the chamber. When in combat you may have to do what you have to do but you are balancing staying alive right now vs having a wrecked gun for the next fire fight. Training manuals will tend to favor going easy on the gun in order to preserve it.
The French FM 24/29 used a rate of fire of about 450-500rpm in order to keep the heat load down. The BAR (at least most of the ones used in WW II) had cycle rates of about 500-650rpm on high and 300-450 rpm on low (as per the manual). SO the BAR operator had his choice of slow cycle rate for less heat build up or higher cycle rate if things were desperate.
BOTH guns fired open bolt which makes singles shot fire accurate fire a bit problematic. The French gun used a separate trigger for single shots, the BAR depended on the slow cycle rate and a quick trigger release for single shots (not so good?) but with both guns the bolt was held to the rear and when the trigger was pressed the bolt moved forward, stripped a round from the magazine, chambered it and then fired. Given the time delay, weight of moving parts propelled by springs and bolt slamming shut and single shot fire accuracy is probably way less than the bolt action rifles (or M-1). It also depends on the bipods/ rear monopods and weight of the whole gun. A heavier gun would probably be steadier. In the case of the BAR and the FM 23/29 both guns are rather similar in weight.

Heavy barrels will absorb more heat than a light barrel, however after a certain point or temperature is reached they only have a slightly better rate of dispersing heat (they are fatter and have bit more surface area) designers have used finned or fluted barrels in order to help disperse the heat.
The big bugaboo was the heat and hot gases washing out the rifling. Guns that are smooth bores for several inches in front of the chamber have both lousy accuracy and low muzzle velocity. 

To try and put things into perspective the Vickers water cooled gun was rated at 200rpm sustained fire "practically" forever. There were three limitations, 1, the obvious one, ammo. 200rpm for 60 minutes is 12,000 rounds. 2. water, At 200rpm the Vickers gun begain to boil the water in the jacket after 700 rounds (from memory, could be off) and lost 1 pint every 500 rounds after that. Without a condenser can the Vickers needs 30 gallons of water to fire that 12,000 rounds. 3. barrel/s even with the water cooling the procedure was to change the barrel every 10,000 rounds.

Few, if any, of the air cooled guns, (even Browning 1919s) had anywhere near 12,000 rounds of ammo available 99% of the time.
Few, even the German guns, had the number of spare barrels available to match the "sustained" rate of the Vickers (or other water cooled guns) and the combination of the two really affect "firepower" at the squad level. Unless you are about to be overrun by scores of bayonet wielding fanatics the LMGs firepower was limited by the barrel cooling rather than the magazine capacity. Bren was rated at 120rpm (4 magazines Per minute) for 2 1/2 minutes (10 magazines) before barrel change. Does anybody really think that 5 or six magazine changes are really going to slow the gun/s down that much? at 450rpm it takes 16 seconds of firing time to fire 120 rounds. leaving 44 seconds for magazine changes. Actually firing 3-4 round bursts with sight pauses would stretch the firing time to around 30 seconds leaving 5-6 second per magazine change.
If the Bren has no spare barrel what would the rate of fire be???
Yes If I was in combat I would prefer larger magazines "just in case" but size of the magazines had very little to do with the "practical" rate of fire.

BTW I would note that the Japanese type 96 machine gun which seems to find favor with some people had a few flaws. Like lousy primary extraction which meant a high rate of head case separations or extractors pulling through the rim leaving the case stuck in the chamber. The "solution" for this was, unlike the Breda 30 which squirted oil on the cartridge as it entered the chamber, to have a magazine loading machine which oiled the cartridges as they were inserted into the magazines so the gunner and his assistant/s could carry around magazines full of oily cartridges attracting dirt, sand, dust which also did wonders for the guns reliability. The type 99 not only used the 7.7mm cartridge, it finally got decent primary extraction and could do away with the oiled cartridges.

I would also note that just about every combatant in WW II used corrosive primed ammunition. Not only used it but it was by far the most common type of ammo. It was by no means isolated to the US 30-06 M2 load.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2017)

I would also note that the FM 24/29 used a rate reducer to get that 450-500rpm cycle rate. It may have been a much simpler and better one than the one used in the BAR, I don't know but it was extra parts and extra complication. 
Cycle rate is dependent on several things. The most important being the weight of the bolt/breech block. After that comes spring tension and buffer. But you can only play games so far. a light spring allows the bolt to move sooner and quicker even if it returns the bolt slower. and you need a certain amount of spring pressure to move the bolt forward, strip the round from the magazine and chamber it. Especially if the gun is dirty. Too strong a spring delays opening, not a big deal, but returns the bolt at a higher speed and increases vibration and battering of the gun when the bolt hits home. Some guns did use adjustable spring tension but it may not give the desired rate of fire with acceptable functioning (too slow) or wear and tear on the gun. 
Gas operated guns can used different amounts of gas to open the gun (not all, some were non-adjustable) but in general they used just enough gas to get the gun to operate reliably with the extra openings there to give more power to operate a dirty gun. 
Bren had a 4 position gas port/regulator with the largest opening supposed to be reserved for AA work with a much increased rate of fire. But then AA engagements rarely lasted long. Even with a 100 round drum on top.

Some videos claim the Japanese machineguns do not need the oiled ammo. I don't know if modern recreational shooters ever let their guns/ammo get really dirty or if they are using modern ammo or surplus ammo from the 30s and 40s. Modern brass is a lot better than 1930/40 brass. Rifle cartridge cases go through several annealing processes during manufacture and even with a good alloy of brass they can be soft or brittle due to poor annealing. For the US there were 3 grades of 30-06 ammo during WW II. Grade 1 was for aircraft machine guns, grade 2 was for ground machine guns and grade 3 was for rifles. The grade was based on the suitability of the ammo for the intended gun/s and had nothing to do with accuracy or power. Best grade was the best grade of brass and uniformity to cause the least jams in aircraft where a jammed gun pretty much stayed jammed until the aircraft landed. 
In any case NOBODY built a post WW II machine gun to use oiled/lubricated cartridges. 

I have noted earlier that some guns got chrome plated bores. There are two reasons for making a chrome plated bore. 1 is that the chrome plate is much more resistant to the effects of the corrosive primers and needs much less cleaning. Russians chrome plated a lot of rifle and machinegun bores during WW II let alone after WWII. Simplifies training. 2nd reason is it makes the rifling last longer but this may require a thicker layer of chrome than for corrosion protection. It also requires better chrome plating techniques. Rifle barrels, while getting too hot to touch are still hundreds of degrees cooler than a machinegun barrel. If not done right the chrome plate can come loose in chunks. The chrome protects against the wash of hot gases rushing down the bore, the primary cause of barrel erosion. The hotter the barrel the softer it is and the more effect each blast of hot gasses (each shot) has. Please note this has to be done at the factory, chrome plating an existing barrel can make the bore smaller and get into real trouble. You generally need a layer of nickel to make the chrome stick to the steel. You also need to be able to get a uniform thickness of plating the length of the bore and not thick and thin spots over the 20-30 in length. A few guns got chrome chambers and plain bores because it was easier to do and chambers are harder to clean than the bore. A pull through or cleaning rod and patch that does a good job on the bore barely touches the chamber. Being able to take the barrel off makes things a lot easier.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2017)

Just for completeness I would note the following WW II LMG/machine rifles as firing from a closed bolt in single shot mode.

German MG 13
German FG 42 (the paratrooper machine rifle)
Johnson LMG/machine rifle 1941/44 models.
Simonov AVS-36 

and ?????

1st and 4th fire closed bolt at all times which hinders cooling and can lead to cook-offs. not as much of a problem with the Simonov as it wasn't intended for support fire. 2nd and 3rd were able to fire closed bolt in single shot mode but open bolt when fired in automatic mode. 

A number of LMGs fired full automatic only with no provision for single shots except a well trained trigger finger. Slow rates of fire helped on this one. 

I would also note that many armies differed widely in the amount of support firepower/weapons at infantry company level. The US Army provided a pair of Browning 1919A4 guns to most infantry companies. 




which are hardly "light" machine guns but are about 1/2 the weight of a Vickers/Maxim/Browning 1917 machine gun and offer quite a bit of "firepower" to the company commander. US troops were not impressed by the 1919A6 as a substitute for the BAR in most cases. 




Note that the carrying handle on the barrel is just that, a carrying handle, it has nothing to do with changing the barrel. 
In many armies anything bigger than a LMG was held at battalion level although the battalion commander could parcel out the Battalion guns to the companies if the situation warranted it. A few armies tried to compromise and held heavier mountings and spare barrels at company level for a certain number of the squad/platoon guns. 

Once you get away from the Bren/CZ and the M34/42 _everything else_ is in much lower categories. And the MG 34 had a few problems of it's own, yes the barrel was "quick change" but some quick change barrels are quicker than others. 




A reason the MG 34 was retained as an AFV gun after the MG 42 arrived? 

A lot of guns had a whole series of plus and minuses and you can't pick just a few features to declare winners.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 24, 2017)

Self loading rifles work well in the air as there is no mud.
The MG-42 was king so why in Korea was the BAR and Bren still widely used?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2017)

The Basket said:


> The MG-42 was king so why in Korea was the BAR and Bren still widely used?



Because nobody was spending much actual money on new army weapons from 1945-50. They did a lot of experimenting but coming up with the money for tens of thousands of machine guns wasn't in the budget. 
The British were practically broke and just buying jet aircraft and few Centurion tanks was about all they could afford. 

You might also get a fair amount of argument about the MG 42 being that much better than the Bren gun too. 









1st photo is in the Falkland Islands in 1982, 2nd photo is on the way to the Falklands, I believe the troops in question are the Royal Marines. 
another photo, not real clear but appears 2nd man from left has a Bren.




It _may_ have been used by the 1st para's in addition to the Royal Marines. 

For elite units to be using the Bren in the early 80s they must have thought it had some advantages over the other weapons available. 

The Bren can fire single shots on one pull of the trigger, this is due to the selector switch and not skill at pulling the trigger. 
The MG 42 has no single shot position and trying to fire even short bursts from a 1200-1500rpm gun is not easy. 
The high rate of fire of the MG 42 has several problems, one is how much ammo the squad can carry. There is no free lunch, if the gun fires 2 to 2 1/2 times faster than other guns you run out of ammo faster if using the same time length bursts. The gun also vibrates/moves more and the last rounds of a burst may be further from the target, generally wasted. And if you use the high rate of fire, as in Bren fires 120rounds per minute (four magazines) and the MG 42 fires 200 rounds in a minute (four 50 round belts) you have to change the barrel sooner to keep from wrecking the barrel. 
The MG 42 was a *general purpose *machine gun, not a light machine gun. It was _used to fill the roles_ of LMG, Medium Machine gun (tripod mount) and AA machine gun (the Germans had no 12.7-13mm AA machine gun), it was this last role that pushed the rate of fire up. 
Somebody once said it took three Bren guns to make as much noise as one MG 42 but it took two MG 42s to make as many casualties as one Bren gun. This may have been a moral building statement rather than the result of any study or test but there may be an element of truth to it.

It happens that about the only experience I have with machine guns is one 50 round belt from an MG 42 ( and two short bursts from a Vickers) so my experience is certainly far from the last word. I got 7 bursts from the 50 round belt, average 7 rounds per burst? last burst may have been 5-6 rounds? The owner of the gun could fire 4 round bursts with occasional 3 round bursts. Gun climbed up and right (I am right handed) when firing from the prone position (rug on a macadam surface) and covered an area about 4 ft wide and several feet high from low left to high right at about 100 yds. Being a good machine gunner would take a lot of practice. 
For perspective I am better than average rifle shot. For our Australian members back in 1989 I won 3rd place in the Queensland state championships in air rifle, small bore 3 position and small bore prone. It may have been a lucky weekend  or it may have been that the people from Brisbane in the scoring shack would rather see the Yankee win than the guys from Sydney. 
I have also competed in high power (full bore) rifle matches using Bolt action target rifles, two different M-1 Garands and a couple of times with M-16s. 
No automatic fire but 10 rounds in 60-70 seconds from standing and including one reload.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 25, 2017)

Not sure if I say Falkland Isles or Las Malvinas? Anyhoo the 1st picture taken in glorious service to the Commonwealth has a L7 gpmg in the background...and SLRs which kinda make the Bren slightly archaic.
I always take Japanese guns with a pinch of Sake because of the poor press they get.

Now....would I take a BAR to war...yes ive read nothing to say otherwise. However my service rifle was the SA80 L85A1 so I can't say much!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2017)

Getting back a bit more on thread some weights from a BAR manual.

weight (complete with bipod and magazine assembly)...........19.4lbs
weight (less bipod)..................................................................17lbs
weight of bipod assembly.........................................................2.38lbs
weight of magazine assembly .................................................0.44lbs
weight of moving parts.............................................................2.25lbs
weight of barrel........................................................................3.65lbs
and from another source
weight of 20 rounds of ammo..................................................1.13lbs. 

Weight of M-1 Garand goes from 9.5lbs for empty-bare gun to over 11lbs depending on if loaded, presence of sling, cleaning equipment in butt-stock or bayonet.

The weight of the moving parts in BAR is a hint at the problems of firing any open bolt gun in single shot mode regardless of trigger operation. 2.25lbs (?) moving 3 1/4 to 4 inches (?) depending on gun after trigger is pulled and slamming closed into the back of the barrel before the gun goes off. The heavier the gun in relation to the weight of the moving parts the better things will be. Differences in bi-pods and butt mono-pods may help but the butt mono-pods seem to be the first things to disappear in the field in many armies.


----------



## Token (Jul 7, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Has it been decided yet if the BAR is a rifle or machine gun?
> 
> I suppose it would be the Lewis in ww1 from the British rival point of view.




The BAR was conceived, designed, and originally tested at a time when an infantryman carried a Springfield M1903, a bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine. It was designed and adopted to give a squad an increased rate of fire. It somewhat fulfilled the role of what we now call the squad automatic weapon, although naturally it was not called that and has nowhere near the sustained rate of fire for such a weapon today.


It is absolutely a machine gun, probably should be called a light machine gun, and it continued to fill its original requirement after the M1 Garand was adopted. Although naturally it was probably not as big an asset as when squads were outfitted with the M1903. It was still used to increase the rate of fire of a small unit, having a higher individual rate of fire and requiring less time reloading for any given number of rounds. It probably excelled when suppressing fire from a small mobile unit was required.


After adoption of the M1 Garand it probably kind of filled the role that the assault rifle eventually filled. Yeah, it is not one, but it existed, in numbers, before those did in the forces using the BAR. During WW II it appears to have been most affectively used when short duration increases in fire rate were needed, such as breaking contact, on initial contact, or for suppressive fire. Stuff I have read seems to indicate it was more useful in the Pacific than in the ETO, I assume (this is only an assumption) because of the ranges involved, in the ETO a shorter, handier, weapon like the M1928A1 Thompson might have been a better fit.


I don’t really think you can fit it into modern descriptive niches (things change), rather you have to look at the roles it actually served in.


I own a BAR (M1918A2) as well as various M1 Garands. I also own M1A’s (civilian version of the M14) although not a full auto version. I have fired the M14 in full auto, as that was still in use when I entered service and was the rifle I was issued in boot camp. I never saw / used the BAR while I was active duty, they were about 10 years gone by then, in fact I never handled one until I bought mine. The M14 in full auto was a bit of a handful, a big man can run the gun OK if he is properly prepared, but really it is a semi-auto with auto ability. The BAR is much easier to run. I am a lot older now, but I can fire the BAR and control it much better than I ever remember doing with the M14 in full auto. Still it is, for me, a burst weapon (in fast fire) from the shoulder, 2 – 4 burst per magazine of aimed fire. On slow fire it is relatively easy to control for an entire magazine. I have seen others run the BAR in fast fire for a magazine and do quite well, but it is a bit much for me to be anything close to accurate with in that mode.

T!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 8, 2017)

There was the Lewis gun which kinda fits the bill.
The BAR and Lewis are strange bedfellows but in my view the Lewis is more of a proper machine gun. 
To me the BAR is an automatic rifle which becomes a machine gun because there is no other alternative. 
Of course the Lewis is big and bulky and heavy and pushing the idea of what is man portable but if you compare the Lewis and BAR then you see the strength and weakness of what are contemporary designs.


----------



## Token (Jul 8, 2017)

I think now we are talking a matter of semantics. Yes, I agree the Lewis was the better "light machine gun" if we want to pigeon hole weapons into more narrowly defined niches.


However I don't think the Lewis was ever adopted by the US Army for the infantry. The BAR was. So in use with the primary service that developed and fielded it (the BAR), whatever one might think personally of the weapon, it was used in the way similar to how a light machine gun would be used. Of course we can argue if it should have been, were there better choices, was a weapon used in ways it might not have been best suited, etc.


So I am talking about how the weapon was used as defining what the weapon is.


The US Navy, and Marine Corp, adopted both the BAR and the Lewis shortly after each was developed, but the Lewis was dropped decades before the BAR left service. The Navy used both M1 Garands (often in 7.62 NATO), and later M14s, side by side to the BAR. By the time I entered service a few of the M1s were still around, but it was M14s and M60s for the most part, with Mk 21 Mod 0 (Navy versions of the M1919 in 7.62 NATO) and Ma Deuce on pintle mounts.


I suspect the introduction of the Mk 21 Mod 0 was what led to the last BARs being dropped by the Navy. Previously the original M1919 was used, in its original .30-06 caliber. After the Mk 21 was delivered that left the BAR as the only weapon in .30-06 on Navy ships, everything else was in 7.62 NATO or .50 BMG.


T!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2017)

The American Army did not adopt the Lewis gun because of the personal animosity that the chief of US Ordnance, General William Crozier, had for it's inventor, Colonel Isaac Lewis. It had little to do with the merits of the Lewis gun or defects. 

The Lewis gun, in original form was heavy, 26lbs 8oz for the gun, another 1lb 12 oz for the bipod and an empty pan magazine was 1lb 8oz. fully loaded the magazine weighed 4lbs 8 oz. 
While much lighter than the typical water cooled guns of the day the all up weight of 32lbs 12 oz is a bit much compared to later LMGs. 
The air cooling system was _supposed _allow for a high volume of fire. I am not sure if anyone really knows how well it worked as few, if any, test results seem to exist. All we have is anecdotes about stripped aircraft guns with bare barrels being used without problem but no details as to rounds fired per minute or barrel wear. 
I would also note that the Lewis gun dates from 1913 and so has nothing to do with the conditions in the trenches in WW I or tactical concepts that came from trench warfare. 
In the 1916 US army (which did have a small number of Lewis guns, about 350)) the scale of issue was FOUR guns per battalion. It didn't matter it they were Lewis guns, Benet-Mercier machine rifles, Colt 1895 (Potato diggers) or 1904 Maxim guns. It was four guns per battalion in a separate machine gun platoon/company. 
The US Army of WW I was thoroughly (too thoroughly ) indoctrinated by French instructors and the earlier mentioned "walking" fire (in addition to artillery use and other French ideas) which lead to at least one test of suitable guns that included both a Hotchkiss machine rifle with top mounted magazine and a Berthier machine rifle. Pictures are in "Hatcher's Notebook" 
There were no bipods and the intended use was to fire from the hip while advancing across no mans land for supressive fire. The BAR was the gun adopted but fortunately the war ended before _this idea_ was put into practice. 
The BAR didn't really become a unit support weapon until the 1922 model which was adopted by the US cavalry




Note heavy barrel with fins. 

I don't know _when _it was decided that the BAR would be equipped with a bi-pod and issued as a LMG or support weapon for small units (company or below) but certainly by the late 30s or 1940. But this was well after it's design and initial adoption.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 8, 2017)

The Lewis didn't work early in the 30-06 cartridge but worked in 303 so it's early rejection was not misplaced.
The Americans did have the Johnson LMG which seemed the ticket. Lighter too. The Johnson and the Farquhar-Hill are proof that service life is no indication of quality. The Americans dropped the M1917 Enfield rifle even though its service was excellent.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2017)

The history of the US Army and machine guns is a bit convoluted and is marked in many cases by extreme lack of funding. 
Pre WW I nobody really knew what the role of the machine gun was, that is to say there was NO tactical doctrine in existence.

I was also in error when I said there were 4 guns per battalion. It was actually four guns per _*regiment*. _A scale of issue totally removed from any consideration as squad or platoon guns. 

This lead to a history/time line of the Army buying the Colt 1895 (Potato digger) in 30/40 Krag ? (Navy/Marines got 6mm guns?) followed by a purchase of the model 1904 Maxim gun. which was followed by the 1909 Benet-Mercier machine rifle. Please note that the army made no distinction between the water cooled guns and the air cooled guns. This _machine rifle _was the standard army machine gun. The Army bought *29 *of these guns from the Hotchkiss company because that is all the money they had, enough for 29 guns. in the next few years the Army got another 670 of these guns with production split between Colt Firearms and Springfield Armory. This was not enough for either factory to fully solve production or heat treatment issues. 
Around 1912/13 the Lewis gun shows up on the scene and yes, in it's first forms, it was a bit lacking in durability/reliability. but as a contender for _standard _machine gun the Army was running 20,000 round durability tests. The Army held a machine gun trial in 1916 that saw the Vickers gun win handily over the Lewis and the Vickers was adopted as the model of 1916. However the Vickers gun is not an easy gun to produce and by the time the US declared war on Germany on April 6th 1917 the total US inventory of machine guns was 153 of of the old Potato Diggers, 282 of the 1904 Maxims, 670 of the Benet-Merciers and 353 Lewis guns in .303 purchased in 1916 to beef up the machine gun inventory during the 1916 Mexican adventures (General Pershing chasing Poncho Villa). None of the 1916 Vickers guns had been delivered yet. 
In May of 1917 the US made an emergency purchase of 1300 Lewis guns in 30-06 as they were about the only guns likely to be available (Savage Arms company having the Lewis in large scale production for the British). In May of 1917 there was another machinegun trial in which the new Lewis gun showed much better than it had in previous trials. What was even more important for the US Army was that John Browning had brought his recoil operated, water cooled machine gun and the rest, as they say, was history. The Browning was cheaper and easier to make than the Vickers and Colt turned out 9327 of the water cooled Browning gun during the war and 7502 aircraft guns while Westinghouse and Remington turned out 71,019 of the water cooled guns. The 1916 Vickers being dropped from production plans
It was at this same trial (called the "United States Machine Gun Board") in May of 1917 that the BAR was introduced and 85,277 were built by the end of the war. 
Unfortunately it took time to get into full production of the Browning guns and while they would have been used to very good effect had the war gone on into 1919 for 1917 and much of 1918 the US troops were forced to use French Hotchkiss and Chauchat guns. 

Getting back to the Lewis guns, after it's showing in the May 1917 Machine gun board the Army ordered another 2500 guns, the Navy and Marines ordered 9270, a bit later the Army purchased 47,000 Lewis guns for aircraft use. 

Many automatic guns needed several years of development and improvements, Browning guns were almost an exception to the rule, being pretty much ready to go from the start although a few manufacturing difficulties did crop up, like improperly tempered springs in early 1918 BARS. 

Had US ordnance offered more support and/or development assistance earlier in the Lewis guns development it's problems may have been sorted out out much quicker. One of the major changes between the early guns (.303) and late guns (30-06) was allowing a bit more movement of the gas piston before the bolt unlocked from the receiver. This meant a fraction of second delay and allowed pressure in the chamber to drop a bit more making extraction easier and reduced the battering on the gun which also reduced parts breakage. 
This was accomplished by simply machining a bit longer slot in the bolt before the operating rod hit the cam surface to turn the bolt if I remember correctly.


----------

