# Bren vs BAR



## gjs238 (Jun 27, 2009)

Should the Americans have switched to the Bren (or some other incarnation of the ZB vz. 26)?


----------



## renrich (Jun 27, 2009)

The US had a light machine gun which served at least somewhat the same role as the Bren. The Bren and BAR were not exactly the same kind of weapon.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Should the Americans have switched to the Bren (or some other incarnation of the ZB vz. 26)?



Yes


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 27, 2009)

The BAR was not really an LMG - more of a proto-asault rifle in many ways, and perhaps influenced by the US Army's employment of the French Chauchat automatic weapon during WWI. The M1919 .30 cal LMG was bigger and havier than the Bren, and not, IMHO, as practical in the SAW role. Having said that, the MG34 and 42 LMGs were along similar lines and successful, while the Russian DP and Japanese Type 99 were more along the lines of the Bren.


----------



## renrich (Jun 27, 2009)

The Bren was supposedly a crew served weapon although it was used often by a single man. It was mostly fired from the prone position with a bipod. The BAR was always a single man weapon and was shoulder fired and fired from the hip in a line of skirmishers. The Bren was a light machine gun while the BAR was an automatic rifle. The BAR was more portable while the Bren carried a few more rounds and had a quick change barrel. They both had advantages and drawbacks. I don't believe the US Army would have benefitted by subbing the Bren for the BAR.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 27, 2009)

The magazine capacity of the BAR was a little restrictive for it to really punch its weight as a true support weapon and coupled with the high rate of fire, the BAR could use itself up in quick time if the BAR gunner wasn't prudent. I don't know if the BAR came with a bipod arrangement but I can't help wondering if a lack of one didn't see the muzzle 'climbing' during fully automatic operation. It had a tendency to overheat in full auto. At 20lbs, however, it was day-to-day portable by one man.

The Bren comes with 30-round clips and a bipod, both elements for me make it a more dedicated support weapon, more capable of providing the 60%-of-the-platoon-firepower for longer (and probably more effectively). I would expect (and hope) to see my support weapon in the prone position pouring effective fire into the target allowing the rest of the platoon to pepperpot in and take it out; I think a line of skirmishers is no place for a support weapon - its loss could/probably would be devastating on the rest of the platoon. Overheating could be negated with a barrel change. Shame on me, I can't remember what the Bren weighed but unlike the BAR it was a minimum of 2 men to port it (and its ammo) around.

In fairness, the BAR was a fair bit older as a design than the Bren and as its name implies, it is an _Automatic Rifle_; it can do the work of an LMG though not as well, trading some of that effectiveness for greater mobility.


----------



## davebender (Jun 27, 2009)

The Bren was superior to the BAR but not enough of an improvement to warrant a switch. Both Britain and the USA would have benefited by changing to a modern belt fed LMG similiar to the German MG34 and MG42.

Which makes me wonder....
Why didn't the British produce the Bren with a belt feed rather then a magazine feed?


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2009)

I think the Bren was about 4 pounds heavier than the BAR. The BAR did come with a bipod that could be attached. The Bren fed from the top which might have made it difficult to modify for belt feed. The BAR was so handy that bank robbers in the 20s and early 30s used it. ( see Clyde Barrow) LOL


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2009)

The Bren and the BAR weighed about the same (the Mk1 was a bit heavier) and although the Bren was designed as a platoon LMG it was often used as a SAW. The BAR was effectively a SAW and its unfair to compare it to any LMG. The BAR was included in the UK tests to find a new LMG to replace the Lewis and didn't make it to the second round of tests.

Would switching to the Bren make a difference, the reply has to be yes if only for the additional magazine capacity and the ability for sustained fire with the replacement barrel. However, its fair to point out that the UK needed the Bren more than the US. The Lee Enfield was a first rate bolt action rifle, but the US forces had the Garrand a much better weapon.


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2009)

> BAR was effectively a SAW and its unfair to compare it to any LMG


The BAR, Bren, MG-34 and MG-42 were all squad level weapons. About as good a comparison as you could ask for.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2009)

davebender said:


> The BAR, Bren, MG-34 and MG-42 were all squad level weapons. About as good a comparison as you could ask for.



My understanding is that the Bren, MG-34 and MG-42 are LMG's, the BAR was not.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

As a fire support weapon the Bren takes it, but as a single infantry weapon I think the BAR is superior. The BAR is certainly easier to wield, although both are pretty darn heavy.


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2009)

Those terms are meaningless. What counts is that all 4 weapons provided fire support at the infantry squad level.


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2009)

According to wiki, the Bren weighed 22.83 pounds while the BAR-1918A2 with bipod weighed 19 pounds. That is a significant difference in combat although I would not like to tote either very far. My weapon was the M1 carbine and it was not, IMO, much use in combat but was good for carrying.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2009)

renrich said:


> According to wiki, the Bren weighed 22.83 pounds while the BAR-1918A2 with bipod weighed 19 pounds. That is a significant difference in combat although I would not like to tote either very far. My weapon was the M1 carbine and it was not, IMO, much use in combat but was good for carrying.



I don't disagree with the figures but the 22lb figure is for the MK 1. The Mks 3 and 4 which saw extensive service weighed around 19.5lb.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

Still the Bren wasn't as easy to wield as the BAR. The plus side was the extra ammo.


----------



## Watanbe (Jun 29, 2009)

I think for the Bren is the better weapon, it can be fired by one man, at the hip if required was reasonable portable and gave the British infantry the punch they needed in combat However my point is that for the US the BAR was a better option, the American squads were equipped with M1 Garands which could put out a high rate of fire and suppress an enemy. They gave the American infantry squads a firepower advantage. The British with their slower firing Lee Enfields bolt actions really needed the punch that the Bren gun have them. So for the US the BAR was a good weapon, a good assault weapon that could be used to assist in laying down suppressive fire.

As a British Infantry squad I would be more than happy to carry around a Bren given the piece of mind it would have offered. The Bren offered a level of squad support that the BAR couldn't hope to. They were both fine guns which suited their respective infantry setups well. So in answer to original question, the US didn't really need it that badly to warrant producing it.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 29, 2009)

Seems the BAR was more of a rifle than a machine gun. If you look at pics from the war, both Pacific and Europe, in the later part of '44 to '45, it seems there are a lot more BARs than on the TOE. Good design for a rifle, not so much for a squad weapon. 

The Bren was a squad weapon. Better design for a squad weapon. Larger capacity magazine. Fed over the top. Also, I think the barrel could be replaced. Not as handy as the BAR (noted above) but better base of fire weapon. Not as good as a belt fed, but better than the BAR.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 29, 2009)

timshatz said:


> The Bren was a squad weapon. Better design for a squad weapon. Larger capacity magazine. Fed over the top. Also, I think the barrel could be replaced. Not as handy as the BAR (noted above) but better base of fire weapon. Not as good as a belt fed, but better than the BAR.


Agreed and useful summary Tim, so

Bren noticeably better than the BAR for platoon cover
Belt-fed (esp MG42) streets ahead of the Bren for the same role


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 29, 2009)

For clarification, which automatic weapons were deployed at squad level by the different combatants?

UK: Bren
US: BAR (at what level was the M1919 issued at?)
Germany: MG-34/MG42?


----------



## Amsel (Jun 29, 2009)

I have read in a few places that the Germans used the MG's much more then the allied troops. I cannot recall specifics but the German platoons on the Westfront fielded a large percent automatic weapons. When I get home from work I'll check into it.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 29, 2009)

Just found this
looks like an excellent site although it does class the BAR in the same category (Light Machine Guns) as the Bren. There's other weapons comparisons on the page too and a Site Map link at the bottom although I haven't tried that yet

Infantry Weapons of World War Two


----------



## Amsel (Jun 29, 2009)

Fighting in Normandy, Combat Lessons, No. 4 (Lone Sentry)



> German Weapons One infantry regimental commander has given a good detailed description of the defensive organization: *"We found that the enemy employed very few troops with an extremely large number of automatic weapons*. All personnel and automatic weapons were well dug in along the hedgerows in excellent firing positions. In most cases the approaches to these positions were covered by mortar fire. Also additional fire support was provided by artillery field pieces of 75-mm, 88-mm, and 240-mm caliber firing both time and percussion fire. Numerous snipers located in trees, houses, and towers were used.




Generic Stucture of a Fallschrimjger-Division


> Fallschirmjäger-Division - circa late 1944
> 
> 
> A Division had three Fallschirmjaeger regiments, an artillery Regiment, a machine-gun Battalion (this was later removed), an anti-tank Battalion, and supporting units. total strength was 15,976 men. With nine rifle battalions and strong supporting elements, a 1944 Fallschirmjaeger Division at full strength was much stronger than a 1944 Army Infantry Division (six rifle battalions, 12,352 men) *and had a much higher percentage of automatic weapons. (43) this is one reason why the Fallschirmjaeger divisions were so good at defense late in the war. *


----------



## Amsel (Jun 29, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Just found this
> looks like an excellent site although it does class the BAR in the same category (Light Machine Guns) as the Bren. There's other weapons comparisons on the page too and a Site Map link at the bottom although I haven't tried that yet
> 
> Infantry Weapons of World War Two



Nice website,thanks.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 29, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> For clarification, which automatic weapons were deployed at squad level by the different combatants?
> 
> UK: Bren
> US: BAR (at what level was the M1919 issued at?)
> Germany: MG-34/MG42?



They actually had the BAR ready in time for the last year of WW1. But the Army decided not to issue it to the troops in large numbers because, and I am not making this up, they didn't want the Germans to capture it and see how it worked. So, that means the US troops don't get it either. 

Talk about bad reasoning. 

Anyway, it was issued in small groups to test and went over very well. But not widespread.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2009)

Comparing the BAR to the bren yields two designs that are similar in capability, but in my opinion the BAR is not as good as the bren.

The BAR was a reliable weapon, and did fill the role of squad level LMG, but it didnt do this job all that well. It was actually too light, this was a legacy of its original design as an assault rifle, to go forward with the Infantry as they crossed no-mans land in the trenches. It was a successor to the disastrous Chaucat, which the AEF had adopted in 1917.

The weapon was too light when operating in the true LMG role. It tended to bounce around too much, which affected its accuracy.

The other major flaw was the small capacity of the magazine, only twenty rounds, as compared to thirty for the Bren. Coupled with the slightly higher practical rate of fire, this meant that the effective burst time for the BAR was only 1.83 seconds, as opposed to 3.8 for the Bren. You cannot lay down an effective suppressive fire with only 1.8 seconds of burst available.

I dont know anything about the barrel changing arrangements for the BAR, but for the bren i know they were very simple and quick, and that the Bren had a very effective barrel life. 

The only criticism i can level at the bren was that it was very expensive make. The breech block for example was only 2.9 lbs, but it had to be machined from a piece steel more than 22 lbs in weight, and required no less than 229 machining operations to fabricate. this meant that it took a lot of steel to build a Bren, and it took a lot of factory time to manufacture it.

The reasons why the FG-42 is superior to both of them is because it can do two jobs instead of just one. it can operate as both the squad weapon, and as the Platoon support gun. It has a much higher theroretical ROF (up to 1200 RPM), and is actually cheaper to build because it uses a lot of stampings and sheet in place of machied parts. The germans rightly considered the MG to be the heart and soul of the Infantry squad....its main source of firepower, whereas the british still believed it to be a support weapon, complementing the firepower of the rifle commponent. Moreover, the germans were the first to add a second (and sometimes even a third) MG to the rifle squad, giving the squad commander the ability to provide his infantry with mutually supporting fire zones (making it much easier to catch an enemy in cross fire)


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Hello Parsifal,

I assume you were talking about the MG-42 right ? Just a small correction: According to all the data I have the actual RoF of the MG42 was 1,500 rpm, the modern MG-3 shoots at 1,200 rpm. Not that it makes any difference.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Amsel,

To add to what you've already posted:
German Soldiers

_Among other elite German outfits in Normandy, there were paratroopers. They were a different proposition altogether from the Polish or Russian troops. The 3rd Fallschirmj�ger Division came into the battle in Normandy on June 10, arriving by truck after night drives from Brittany. It was a full-strength division, 15,976 men in its ranks, mostly young German volunteers. It was new to combat but it had been organized and trained by a veteran paratroop battalion from the Italian campaign. Training had been rigorous and emphasized initiative and improvisation. The equipment was outstanding. 

Indeed, the Fallschirmj�ger were perhaps the best-armed infantrymen in the world in 1944. The 3rd FJ had 930 light machine guns, eleven times as many as its chief opponent, the U.S. 29th Division. Rifle companies in the FJ had twenty MG 42s and 43 submachine guns; rifle companies in the 29th had two machine guns and nine BARs. At the squad level, the GIs had a single BAR; the German parachute squad had two MG 42s and three submachine guns. The Germans had three times as many mortars as the Americans, and heavier ones. So in any encounter between equal numbers of Americans and Fallschirmj�ger, the Germans had from six to twenty times as much firepower. 

And these German soldiers were ready to fight. A battalion commander in the 29th remarked to an unbelieving counterpart from another regiment, "Those Germans are the best soldiers I ever saw. They're smart and they don't know what the word 'fear' means. They come in and they keep coming until they get their job done or you kill'em." _


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hello Parsifal,
> 
> I assume you were talking about the MG-42 right ? Just a small correction: According to all the data I have the actual RoF of the MG42 was 1,500 rpm, the modern MG-3 shoots at 1,200 rpm. Not that it makes any difference.




Yes. It was originally called the MG-42. I may have mixed the name up with the assault rifle developed for the LW.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Btw, I'd take the Luftwaffe's FG-42 over both as-well. That was one excellent piece of kit. As a fire support weapon the MG-42 MG-42 were however years ahead of anything else throughout the war.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Amsel,
> 
> To add to what you've already posted:
> German Soldiers
> ...



On an interesting note about the FJR.3, an American I&R platoon became the most heavily decorated unit for a single action in WWII fighting the FJR.3 at Lanzerath.


> The 18 men of the I&R platoon had inflicted between 400 and 500 casualties, decimating an entire battalion of the German 3d Parachute Division. The platoon had halted the mission of the paratroopers to rapidly break through the American front and allow armored units of the German main effort the Sixth Panzer Army immediate access to open roads toward the Meuse River On the night of 16 December, the 9th Parachute Regiment in Lanzerath failed to continue to the west. They feared heavy resistance from American defenses such as they had encountered from the I&R platoon.



It is an indicator of how interlocking fields of fire from a bunch of BAR's, two Browning .30's, and a single M2 can cause havoc. This little platoon of intelligence guys caused 50% casualties on an elite unit with small arms fire.

More of the story is here- Battle of the Bulge: Ardennes Forest


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Hehe, this was about the weapons not about how some defenders crushed an ill concieved attack 

The FJR3 was amongst the most feared German units on the western front, and on almost every occasion they gave a lot better than they got.

Btw, only 60 German paratroopers died at Lanzerath, the US unit however succeeded in holding off a 500 man strong German unit, which is a grandous task considering the weapons they had.


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> The BAR was not really an LMG - more of a proto-asault rifle in many ways, and perhaps influenced by the US Army's employment of the French Chauchat automatic weapon during WWI.


Not really an assault rifle in any way, since rather than an "intermediate" cartridge like the 7.92x33mm, it fired the full power .30-06 rifle and machinegun round. The BAR was a "machine rifle" in concept.

The US had an LMG, the Johnson, but used very few of them. Instead the BAR and the Browning M1919A6 were forced into the LMG role, for which they were ill suited.

The BAR was a good gun, but not an LMG. The M1919A6 was neither an LMG, nor even a particularly good gun, in contrast to the M1919A4.

In it's intended role, at the time, the BAR was a good gun. The Bren would have been a far better LMG.


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

timshatz said:


> They actually had the BAR ready in time for the last year of WW1. But the Army decided not to issue it to the troops in large numbers because, and I am not making this up, they didn't want the Germans to capture it and see how it worked. So, that means the US troops don't get it either.
> 
> Talk about bad reasoning.
> 
> Anyway, it was issued in small groups to test and went over very well. But not widespread.


Browning's son Val went to France to test and demonstrate the guns.

The Army could have had Lewis guns too, but Lewis and the head of the Ordnance Corps HATED each other. It didn't help that the gas system of the original .30-06 test guns wasn't optimized for that round and was unnecessarily violent in its action.

I believe that the Marines went to France with Lewis guns and had them taken away and replaced with the wretched Chauchat.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hehe, this was about the weapons not about how some defenders crushed an ill concieved attack
> 
> The FJR3 was amongst the most feared German units on the western front, and on almost every occasion they gave a lot better than they got.
> 
> Btw, only 60 German paratroopers died at Lanzerath, the US unit however succeeded in holding off a 500 man strong German unit, which is a grandous task considering the weapons they had.



I guess the Intelligence unit didn't get the memo about FJR.3 being the most feared when they inflicted so many casaulties upon them. A crushing blow for an elite unit brought on by automatic weapon fire from BAR's, and two .30 Brownings, as well as a Ma Duece. I know it doesn't say much about the weapons as it does the employment of them. I only brought up the FJR.3 as a side note though.


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I guess the Intelligence unit didn't get the memo about FJR.3 being the most feared when they inflicted so many casaulties upon them. A crushing blow for an elite unit brought on by automatic weapon fire from BAR's, and two .30 Brownings, as well as a Ma Duece. I know it doesn't say much about the weapons as it does the employment of them. I only brought up the FJR.3 as a side note though.


The real demonstrations of superior weapons and their employment routinely occurred in the Pacific theater. 

Japanese infantry were regularly scythed like corn by a nearly impassible combination of Browning M1917s, M1919A4s, Garands, .50 M2HBs and occasionally, pump action and semi-auto shotguns. A face full of 00 buck trumps "Yamato damashii" every time.

The Japanese Navy was so impressed by the Garand that they [unsuccessfully] tried to copy it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

The BAR Ma Deuce weren't the reason for the success of the I&R platoon's success, it was their tactics which won the day. They could inflicted even worse casualties had they had a couple of MG-42's or MG-34's around instead. As light as the BAR, belt fed and possessing a higher RoF they would've greatly improven the firepower.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> The BAR Ma Deuce weren't the reason for the success of the I&R platoon's success, it was their tactics which won the day. They could inflicted even worse casualties had they had a couple of MG-42's or MG-34's around instead. As light as the BAR, belt fed and possessing a higher RoF they would've greatly improven the firepower.



I don't disagree. Unless mobility is an issue.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

Thats the great thing about the MG-42 MG-34, they were just as mobile as the BAR Bren, yet the MG-42 MG-34 possessed everything the BAR Bren did and much more.

It was good that the US possessed a rifle as good as the Garand, cause their MG's certainly left a lot to be desired. And the British had it even worse.

Anyway we're straying off topic yet again. Guess we just can't help it  

IMO one can't say the BAR was better than the Bren and vice versa, both had their good bad sides.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Thats the great thing about the MG-42 MG-34, they were just as mobile as the BAR Bren, yet the MG-42 MG-34 possessed everything the BAR Bren did and much more.
> 
> It was good that the US possessed a rifle as good as the Garand, cause their MG's certainly left a lot to be desired. And the British had it even worse.
> 
> ...



Is a belt-fed gun really as mobile as a magazine fed gun?
Can a belt-fed gun truly be a one-man weapon?

For a SAW, might the BREN (or to some extent the BAR) have an advantage over a belt fed gun (MG34, MG42, M1919, etc) in terms of mobility?
Every squad member can carry a magazine or two.
And there needn't be a dedicated "crew" for the gun.

On the other hand, US Rangers and Airborne used M1919's in lieu of BAR's.

Anyone know what the Marines used for SAW's?


----------



## Amsel (Jun 30, 2009)

The Marines used the BAR.


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Marines used the BAR.


And along with the OSS, a few Johnsons, I believe.


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Is a belt-fed gun really as mobile as a magazine fed gun?
> Can a belt-fed gun truly be a one-man weapon?
> 
> For a SAW, might the BREN (or to some extent the BAR) have an advantage over a belt fed gun (MG34, MG42, M1919, etc) in terms of mobility?
> ...


A proper belt pouch/box setup is only marginally less convenient over the long haul than magazines, with the added advantage that belted ammunition is FAR lighter for the same quantity of ammunition than ammunition in magazines. Magazine fed weapons are usually at least somewhat handier in the moment, especially compared to belt fed weapons using NONdisintegrating feed links as the Germans did. A number of weapons have had the provision to use both magazines and belts, including the current FN Minimi/M249, the Czech Vz52 and the Stoner 63.

Rangers and conventional airborne units used both BARs and M1919s.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jun 30, 2009)

The Chatelleraut FM 24/29 deserves honorable mention in this. A few years ago I went with a friend to the famous Knob Creek shoot and I got to see one "in action". The owner said he loved it. The weapon saw a lot of service too: From WW 2 onto Indochina, Suez, Algeria, and a bit afterwards. I would definately class it as an equal to the Bren and BAR. It had two triggers: one for semi-auto (forward trigger) and one for full auto (rear trigger). 

FM 24/29 light machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> The Chatelleraut FM 24/29 deserves honorable mention in this. A few years ago I went with a friend to the famous Knob Creek shoot and I got to see one "in action". The owner said he loved it. The weapon saw a lot of service too: From WW 2 onto Indochina, Suez, Algeria, and a bit afterwards. I would definately class it as an equal to the Bren and BAR. It had two triggers: one for semi-auto (forward trigger) and one for full auto (rear trigger).
> 
> FM 24/29 light machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's a pretty well respected gun, better respected in some cases than it's successor the AA52. Isn't it a partial copy of the BAR? I know that the French tested the BAR extensively after WWI. A lot of this is in "Rock and a Hard Place", the Collector Grade book on the BAR.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jun 30, 2009)

Deanimator said:


> It's a pretty well respected gun, better respected in some cases than it's successor the AA52. Isn't it a partial copy of the BAR? I know that the French tested the BAR extensively after WWI. A lot of this is in "Rock and a Hard Place", the Collector Grade book on the BAR.




I'm not sure how much of the BAR design was incorporated into the FM 24/29 if at all - outwardly it certainly appears to resemble the Bren in appearance, though again I'm not sure if it resembes the Bren mechanically. It was my impression that as the BAR used a rimless cartridge, it was the ammunition that helped convince the French military to look for a replacement to the old rimmed 8mm Lebel cartridge, so I wonder if the 30-06 did more to influence the adoption of the FM 24/29 than the actual BAR design. I'll have to pull out the few books I have on this weapon and reread a few pages.


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 30, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I'm not sure how much of the BAR design was incorporated into the FM 24/29 if at all - outwardly it certainly appears to resemble the Bren in appearance, though again I'm not sure if it resembes the Bren mechanically. It was my impression that as the BAR used a rimless cartridge, it was the ammunition that helped convince the French military to look for a replacement to the old rimmed 8mm Lebel cartridge, so I wonder if the 30-06 did more to influence the adoption of the FM 24/29 than the actual BAR design. I'll have to pull out the few books I have on this weapon and reread a few pages.


Actually, ammunitionwise, the French were influenced by the 7.5mm Swiss and the 7.92x57mm Mauser. The original round for the FM 24/29 was basically a 7.5x58mm version of the 7.92 Mauser. A rash of serious explosions during service testing were tentatively attributed to users inadvertently attempting to fire 7.92 Mauser ammunition (which was being used in captured German weapons utilized for training) in the 7.5mm weapon. This led to the case being shortened slightly to 54mm to make it impossible to chamber the Mauser round.

"Rock in a Hard Place" describes the 24/29 as a combination of Berthier and BAR features. Most people don't realize it but Indian troops were originally equipped with the Vickers-Berthier rather than the Bren. It looks like a cross between a Bren and a MAC 24/29.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 30, 2009)

That LMG doesn't look like it shares much in design with a BAR. Remember that the BAR has a locking recess in the receiver where that top magazine sticks out of the gun.

My personal pick among these various guns is a BAR. The FG42 takes a very close second but that wacky side magazine doesn't do well by me. The BAR isn't all that hard to fire offhand except that it is a bit heavy, but not much heavier than a Thompson with a 50 round drum. I haven't fired any of these three, but the Bren with the offset sights just didn't feel right being aimed off the shoulder. This is just my personal opinion, so YMMV.

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

If I wanted a mobile full power assault rifle then I'd go with the FG-42 over anything else, no doubt about it, it's got a straight stock design and a muzzle brake, both greatly reducing muzzle climb in full auto fire. But even more important perhaps is the recycling mechanism which shifts from an open bolt confirguration in full auto fire, eliminating cook offs, to a closed bolt configuration in semi automatic fire, maximizing accuracy.

A nice vid of one being fired:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NakILDmzuA_

As a fire support weapon nothing beats the MG-42 MG-34 however.

For maximimum portability both the MG-34 MG-42 could be equipped with a drum magazine of 50 rounds:


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2009)

Ivan, I don't understand your description of a BAR with a" top magazine sticking out of the gun." Would you elaborate, please?


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

renrich said:


> Ivan, I don't understand your description of a BAR with a" top magazine sticking out of the gun." Would you elaborate, please?



He was referring to the FM 24/29, which has a "top magazine sticking out of the gun."


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 1, 2009)

Soren said:


> If I wanted a mobile full power assault rifle then I'd go with the FG-42


By definition, an "assault rifle" can't be "full power". An assault rifle fires an "intermediate" cartridge, between a pistol round and a rifle round. Examples are the 7.92x33mm, 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm.

One reason why the FG42 failed was the great difficulty with which all full power long guns are controlled in fully automatic fire. The Collector Grade book "Sturmgewehr!" goes into excruciating detail on the development of the German assault rifles, as well as their competitors, such as the FG42.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

Deanimator said:


> By definition, an "assault rifle" can't be "full power". An assault rifle fires an "intermediate" cartridge, between a pistol round and a rifle round. Examples are the 7.92x33mm, 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm.



I know Dean, I was merely responding to Ivan's post. The first true assault rifle was the StG.44. 



> One reason why the FG42 failed was the great difficulty with which all full power long guns are controlled in fully automatic fire. The Collector Grade book "Sturmgewehr!" goes into excruciating detail on the development of the German assault rifles, as well as their competitors, such as the FG42.



The FG-42 didn't fail, the gun was superb and loved by the troops, but it was too expensive to manufacture. Yet it was kept in limited production until the end of the war. But the introduction of the StG.44 made it unnecessary really, as the StG.44 made every other miltary rifle in the world obsolete over night.

But it's true that the FG-42 wasn't an assault rifle, it was an LMG.


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 1, 2009)

Soren said:


> I know Dean, I was merely responding to Ivan's post. The first true assault rifle was the StG.44.


Actually, the MKb42(H and W). Some would argue the Federov before them, although calling the 6.5x50mm Japanese an "intermediate" round is stretching things.

Another little known fact is that the early Mkb42H prototypes fired from an open bolt and were meant to be used exclusively in full-auto.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

Soren said:


> The FG-42 didn't fail, the gun was superb and loved by the troops, but it was too expensive to manufacture. Yet it was kept in limited production until the end of the war. But the introduction of the StG.44 made it unnecessary really, as the StG.44 made every other miltary rifle in the world obsolete over night.
> 
> But it's true that the FG-42 wasn't an assault rifle, it was an LMG.



My understanding is that the FG-42 combined the functions of the rifle (whether main battle rifle or assault rifle) and SAW.

For example, in a typical US Army squad, imagine a FG-42 type gun replacing all M-1 Garands and BAR's.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 1, 2009)

The STG-44 did not necessarily make all other battle rifles obselete. I would rather have a Garand in many scenarios over the STG. It really comes down to doctorine though. The Garand fired a heavy bullet accurately while the STG could not. The STG was automatic and the Garand wasn't. One thing we are seing is the reemergance of the M-14 on the battlefield. This is something combat troops have been clamoring for for awhile. A main battle rifle instead of an assault rifle. Both have their purposes just like a STG and the Garand.


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 1, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> My understanding is that the FG-42 combined the functions of the rifle (whether main battle rifle or assault rifle) and SAW.
> 
> For example, in a typical US Army squad, imagine a FG-42 type gun replacing all M-1 Garands and BAR's.


Not unlike what happened in the US Army and Marines with the M14, albeit the FG42 was somewhat easier to control in full-auto due to design. Both the FG42 and the full-auto capable Garand offshoots culminating in the M14 are far too light for truly effective full-auto fire.

The average infantryman can't hit much of anything with the M16 on full-auto. Anybody who's shot an M1903, M1, Kar98k or G43 can tell you the difference in recoil impulse between them and an M16 chambered for 5.56x45mm.

Guns like the BAR, Bren, Chatellerault, etc., are heavy enough for reasonably accurate full-auto fire, especially from a bipod.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

Dean,

I wastalking about the first true assault rifle to reach full scale production, and that is the StG.44. The first true assault rifle to be built was the Mkb42(H) by Haenel. 

As for the FG-42, it's more controllable in full auto fire than both the BAR M14 by virtue of its' better design. The inline stock and rather advanced muzzle brake decreases the recoil a lot. But still it will kick considerably more than any assault rifle.

PS: The FG-42 came with a mounted bipod as standard.

Amsel,

The StG.44 is accurate enough out to around 500m, and it will go straight through a German steel helmet at 700m, so power isn't lacking either. So in by far the majority situations incountered the StG.44 will be light years better than the Garand. 

Now ofcourse there will be situations where the assault rifle will be lacking in power to be sufficient for the task at hand, and in that case you need either battle rifles or full power MG's to step in. The FG-42 was the perfect answer to this as it could be used effectively in three different roles, the light machine gun role, the sniper rifle role the battle rifle role.

Also I believe the need for the battle rifle has risen again because of the areas in which we fight these days. In Afghanistan Iraq the nature of landscape there has often created long range engagements in which the assault rifle was found lacking in effective range (The small 5.56mm aint great over long range), and full power weapons were missed among the troops.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 1, 2009)

Soren, it is of many expert opinions that the M1 was made obselete by the STG, but thousands of GI's would probably not agree. The Garand was loved by all for its ability to perform in all conditions, its ruggedness, its accuracy and its ability to get the job done well in spite of the theory that it was obselete. It was a superbly engineered rifle. Not a saturation weapon like the STG but more in tune with the old but nt obselete theory of individual marksmanship and "one shot,one kill" which is still hammered into the heads of Marine recruits.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

Well you know, as much as I love the Garand as a rifle, it wasn't as effective for the fighting on the western front as weapons like the StG.44. And I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this but I actually think that the Gewehr 43 was a slightly better battle rifle for war on the western front than the Garand. But still the Garand was a great rifle with great reliability and good accuracy, esp. for a semi automatic rifle. The only dislikes I have about it are the low ammo count, inability to reload midclip and the rather dangerous sound it made once emptied (Although I know this could be used as a trick), the Gewehr 43 didn't have these "flaws" if you can call them that, and was therefore maybe a tiny bit more suited for warfare IMO.

Not sure about wether the Garand was designed after the "one shot, one kill" line of thought either, this seemed to be more along the German line of thought which stretched all the way back to the 1700's, hence why they retained the K98k as their main service arm for so long. I actually think the Garand was designed more along the lines of maximum rounds on target. But I know that the US Marine corps kind of uniquely within the US armed forces emphasized accurate shooting a lot, but they also retained the M1903 Springfield the longest.


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 1, 2009)

Soren said:


> Not sure about wether the Garand was designed after the "one shot, one kill" line of thought either, this seemed to be more along the German line of thought which stretched all the way back to the 1700's, hence why they retained the K98k as their main service arm for so long.


The reasons why the Germans kept the Kar98k were 50% interminable bureaucratic noodling (incessant changes of requirements) and 50% meddling by Hitler, who was an "expert" on infantry weapons based on his time as a junior NCO in WWI.

The book "Sturmgewehr!" goes into great detail concerning the long and tortuous path which German ordnance officials took toward replacing the Mauser rifle, which of course never happened. There was less bureaucratic wrangling, changes of vision, and changes of requirements in the decision to select the Me262.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

Deanimator said:


> Not unlike what happened in the US Army and Marines with the M14, albeit the FG42 was somewhat easier to control in full-auto due to design. Both the FG42 and the full-auto capable Garand offshoots culminating in the M14 are far too light for truly effective full-auto fire.
> 
> The average infantryman can't hit much of anything with the M16 on full-auto. Anybody who's shot an M1903, M1, Kar98k or G43 can tell you the difference in recoil impulse between them and an M16 chambered for 5.56x45mm.
> 
> Guns like the BAR, Bren, Chatellerault, etc., are heavy enough for reasonably accurate full-auto fire, especially from a bipod.



Well, yes and no.
This is apples oranges.
The M-14 M-16 are "assault rifles."

Assault Rifles in general are too light, uncontrollable, and overheat too quickly to replace the SAW.
Their full auto mode is more useful for situations when a SMG is desired, but not available.
So one could say the assault rifle replaces the MBR and SMG for a rifleman.
The FG-42 was not intended as such.

The FG-42 was heavier and would replace the MBR and SAW.
When used as a SAW, it would be fired rested, from a bipod, or perhaps from the hip.
From the shoulder it would be fired semi-auto, from a closed bolt, as the MBR.


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 1, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Well, yes and no.
> This is apples oranges.
> The M-14 M-16 are "assault rifles."
> 
> ...


Neither the M14 nor the BM59 are "assault rifles". Neither fires an intermediate cartridge.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

Deanimator said:


> Neither the M14 nor the BM59 are "assault rifles". Neither fires an intermediate cartridge.



Then don't call them assault rifles - call them widgets.
The FG-42 is not a widget.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 1, 2009)

The M-14 is not a widget, it is a MBR.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The M-14 is not a widget, it is a MBR.



This is a distraction from the point.
The FG-42 should not be compared to the poor historical performance of the M-14 M-16 fired full auto.

The M-14 M-16 were not successful in performing the role of SAW.
The FG-42 was designed to function as MBR and SAW.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 1, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> This is a distraction from the point.
> The FG-42 should not be compared to the poor historical performance of the M-14 M-16 fired full auto.
> 
> The M-14 M-16 were not successful in performing the role of SAW.
> The FG-42 was designed to function as MBR and SAW.



Oh I agree. Except that an M-14 is not an assault rifle.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

Deanimator said:


> The reasons why the Germans kept the Kar98k were 50% interminable bureaucratic noodling (incessant changes of requirements) and 50% meddling by Hitler, who was an "expert" on infantry weapons based on his time as a junior NCO in WWI.
> 
> The book "Sturmgewehr!" goes into great detail concerning the long and tortuous path which German ordnance officials took toward replacing the Mauser rifle, which of course never happened. There was less bureaucratic wrangling, changes of vision, and changes of requirements in the decision to select the Me262.



Yes but there was a reason for why Hitler argued for the continued use of the K98k. The reason was: He wanted his soldiers to be able to consistently hit a human sized target beyond 1,000 meters, often using the 1,200 meter effective range of the K98k as the main reason for why it should stay in service as the main service arm. Hitler however still lived in the trenches of WW1 in regards to his preference on this matter. The G43 StG.44 should've both replaced the K98k in 1943 as the main service arm. (The StG.44 could've entered production as early as mid 43 [MP-43])


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

Deanimator said:


> Not unlike what happened in the US Army and Marines with the M14, albeit the FG42 was somewhat easier to control in full-auto due to design. Both the FG42 and the full-auto capable Garand offshoots culminating in the M14 are far too light for truly effective full-auto fire.
> 
> The average infantryman can't hit much of anything with the M16 on full-auto. Anybody who's shot an M1903, M1, Kar98k or G43 can tell you the difference in recoil impulse between them and an M16 chambered for 5.56x45mm.
> 
> Guns like the BAR, Bren, Chatellerault, etc., are heavy enough for reasonably accurate full-auto fire, especially from a bipod.



Well, yes and no.
This is apples oranges.
The M-14 M-16 (assault rifles and selective fire MBR's in general) are too light, uncontrollable, and overheat too quickly to replace the SAW.
Their full auto mode is more useful for situations when a SMG is desired, but not available.
So one could say the assault rifle replaces the MBR and SMG for a rifleman.
The FG-42 was not intended as such.

The FG-42 was heavier and would replace the MBR and SAW.
When used as a SAW, it would be fired rested, from a bipod, or perhaps from the hip.
From the shoulder it would be fired semi-auto, from a closed bolt, as the MBR.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2009)

Looking at some video of these guns being fired, from the shoulder and from a rest:

From the shoulder full auto, the BAR appears to be WAY more steady than the FG-42, BREN and Johnson M1941 LMG.
Fired from a rest full auto, the BREN and BAR appear more steady than the FG-42.

So I suppose one has to decide what is preferable in most situations...
BAR: Less weight, more accurate from the shoulder (and on the move.)
BREN: From a rest, greater magazine capacity and quick change barrel.
FG-42: Compromise combo of MBR and SAW.


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 2, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Looking at some video of these guns being fired, from the shoulder and from a rest:
> 
> From the shoulder full auto, the BAR appears to be WAY more steady than the FG-42, BREN and Johnson M1941 LMG.
> Fired from a rest full auto, the BREN and BAR appear more steady than the FG-42.
> ...


BAR: Controllable in full-auto fire, especially from the bipod. Serviceable SAW. Relatively low rate of fire due to small magazines. Far too heavy to replace the rifle. No sustained fire capability in common US versions. "Machine rifle"/SAW.

BREN: Controllable in full-auto fire, especially from the bipod. Serviceable light machinegun with easily changeable barrels, albeit with somewhat limited rate of fire due to magazine feed. Excellent for the time as a SAW. No possibility to replace the rifle due to weight.

FG-42: Less controllable than the two above in full-auto fire, even from a bipod. Low firepower due to small magazine. Barrel not changeable, so not usable as LMG. Passable as SAW. Just light enough for general issue. A compromise that's not an optimal rifle or SAW, but consolidates scarce resources.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 2, 2009)

Slight hijack of the thread.

Use of the three weapons above in the movies. My favorites. 

BAR- Steve McQueen in "Sand Pebbles". He makes the thing look soooo cool. 
Bren- "Lock, Stock and Three Smoking Barrels". When the three guys are in that cage, trying to get into the Apartment and some pinhead is shooting at them with a pellet gun. The guy in the back steps up with a Bren and lets off a magazine. Funny scene, Everyone just freezes because of the power.
MG42- Never seen a movie/show (from "To Hell and Back" to "Band of Brothers") where that thing didn't steal the show. The sound and muzzle blast are awesome.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 2, 2009)

The MG42 in "Saving Private Ryan" Omaha beach scene is also terrifying.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 2, 2009)

timshatz said:


> BAR- Steve McQueen in "Sand Pebbles". He makes the thing look soooo cool.



For a hi-jack post, an interesting point 
Steve gives an excellent demonstration of the portability, handiness, and ease of shooting from the shoulder of the BAR.


----------



## glennasher (Jul 4, 2009)

I'd think the Bren was somewhat better than the BAR, at least from the prone position. It's a lot easier to load a fresh magazine in from the top, than the bottom, when using them prone. That's important, MUCH more so than whether or not it can be used like a rifle, IMO.
Peter Kokalis, who wrote for the defunct "Soldier of Fortune" magazine back in the '70s and '80s, knew his automatic weapons pretty well, and didn't much like the BAR, for that reason and others. The quick-change barrels also favor the Bren, which was a derivative of a Czech machine gun, with some alterations for the rimmed .303 cartridge.
While the BAR is a sentimental favorite of mine, objective thought shows the Bren to be better.


----------



## Deanimator (Jul 5, 2009)

glennasher said:


> Peter Kokalis, who wrote for the defunct "Soldier of Fortune" magazine


When did "SoF" get "defunct"? I'm pretty sure I saw a new issue a couple of weeks ago.

It's ok, although I prefer "Smallarms Review", a truly professional journal of NFA and other firearms.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 6, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Is a belt-fed gun really as mobile as a magazine fed gun?
> Can a belt-fed gun truly be a one-man weapon?
> 
> For a SAW, might the BREN (or to some extent the BAR) have an advantage over a belt fed gun (MG34, MG42, M1919, etc) in terms of mobility?
> ...





Deanimator said:


> A proper belt pouch/box setup is only marginally less convenient over the long haul than magazines, with the added advantage that belted ammunition is FAR lighter for the same quantity of ammunition than ammunition in magazines. Magazine fed weapons are usually at least somewhat handier in the moment, especially compared to belt fed weapons using NONdisintegrating feed links as the Germans did. A number of weapons have had the provision to use both magazines and belts, including the current FN Minimi/M249, the Czech Vz52 and the Stoner 63.
> 
> Rangers and conventional airborne units used both BARs and M1919s.




Re: SAW magazine vs belt feed:

The US M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) has been renamed the M249 light machine gun (LMG).
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is considering designs for an infantry automatic rifle, which is planned to complement and partially replace the M249 in their service.

It appears the opinions of magazine vs belt feed swing back and forth.


----------



## renrich (Jul 7, 2009)

If Hitler thought that a soldier could consistently hit a man sized target at 1000 meters with any rifle with iron sights, he was even crazier than I thought he was. I qualified as Expert with the Garand. We fired on the KD (known distance) range and at 500 yards we used a 30 inch bull. That is wider than the average man and at 500 yards with iron sights that bull is tiny and in those days I had much better than average eyesight. At around 500 yards a deer is small though a 7 power scope. Using volley fire on a formation of troops, I can see hits at 1000 meters. The early British troops(The Old Contemptibles) in WW1 were trained to get hits at 800 yards on groups of men with volley fire but I don't believe that a soldier can consistently hit a single man at 1000 meters(or much less) with a service rifle and iron sights. If the US Army had thought there would have been an overall advantage to it, they could have very simply increased the magazine capacity of the BAR to 30 rounds or so.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2009)

I totally agree that its impossible to consistently to hit a man sized target at 1000 yards with iron sights. I used to fire at up to 900 yards using an Enfield target rifle with peep sights. At this range the aiming mark was 4 ft wide and the lowest scoring hit was a lot bigger. 
Simply spotting a man in camo at this range would be quite a feat


----------



## parsifal (Jul 7, 2009)

I would argue that even hitting a man over open sights at even 300 yards under combat conditions is optimistic


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2009)

It's very hard to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for most people, and only a sniper/sharpshooter can really achieve consistant hits on a human sized target at 1000m or more. But you are nonetheless capable of doing it with a full power rifle, while it would be impossible with an assault rifle. Hitler liked that his troops had a weapon with a long effective range, which for bolt action rifles usually was around 1000 to 1200m, and that was the direct reason for why he retained the K98k as the main infantry arm and mistrusted less powerful weapons the role.

That having been said German snipers were required to shoot groups no larger than a head sized target at 400m and a torso sized target at 600m, and kills past 1100 meters were confirmed on several occasions, Matthäus Hetzenaur accounting for one of these. There were also incidents were US troops found themselves under sniper fire from over 1200 yards away and even then casualties occured.


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> It's very hard to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for most people, and only a sniper/sharpshooter can really achieve consistant hits on a human sized target at 1000m or more. But you are nonetheless capable of doing it with a full power rifle,



Or more accurately put
It's impossible to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for everyone. Only a sniper/sharpshooter can really achieve consistant hits on a human sized target at 1000m or more. But you are nonetheless capable of doing it with a full power rifle with a telescopic sight.



> While it would be impossible with an assault rifle. Hitler liked that his troops had a weapon with a long effective range, which for bolt action rifles usually was around 1000 to 1200m, and that was the direct reason for why he retained the K98k as the main infantry arm and mistrusted less powerful weapons the role.


I find it hard to believe that even Hitler would believe this. For all his many faults he did serve with distinction in WW1 and would have known this it is simply not possible to see let alone hit anyone with iron sights at these ranges. Can you give any support to this statement.
FYI the peep sights that I used were not telescopic but are not practical for military use which is why the target had a site mark 48 inches wide.
The development of the machine pistol where its fair to say that Germany had a lead in WW1 and WW2 would question this statement.


----------



## renrich (Jul 8, 2009)

As stated before, snipers during the War Between the States were able to make shots well past 500 yards with optical sights and black powder rifles but I don't believe that even an expert sniper can hit a man sized target at 1000 meters consistently over open sights. At 500 yards with the Garand and a peepsight, the Army got many trainees to hit that thirty inch bull at least some of the time, BUT, we were in a prone postion with a tight loop sling and knew the distance precisely and had the sights adjusted accordingly. I have done a lot of hunting in the West and made quite a few long shots but have never been able to get a shot where I could use a prone position( the grass or bushes being too high) and the range was always an estimate and often way off. To me, that experience more closely simulates combat conditions than firing on the KD range. Having said all this though, my hat is off to the NCOs where I was in basic for their ability to make at least some sort of rifleman out of young men many of which had never handled a firearm.


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> Or more accurately put
> It's impossible to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for everyone.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that even Hitler would believe this. For all his many faults he did serve with distinction in WW1 and would have known this it is simply not possible to see let alone hit anyone with iron sights at these ranges. Can you give any support to this statement.
> ...



I'm afraid that you're badly mistaken Glider. I've consistently been able to hit human sized targets at 600m with iron sights. Yep thats right, 600 meters. It can be done I promise you! And also at longer ranges!

*Torso sized target, K31, 640 yards, 5 hits out of 7 shots! (71.5% hit rate) IRON SIGHTS! *

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsomougcK6E_

*Torso sized target, K31, 1,000 yards, 2 hits out of 6 shots! (33% hit rate) IRON SIGHTS!*

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-Lcvyrifw_

*Torso sized target, scoped K98k, 900 yards, 3 hits out of 4 shots! (75% hit rate) *

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8B4Me5HXNo_


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

Renrich said:


> but I don't believe that even an expert sniper can hit a man sized target at 1000 meters consistently over open sights



I would agree, but a sniper usually has optics on his rifle, and with that it is absolutely possible and often done, hence my comment on that.


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2009)

Soren
Your examples prove the point. They are Bench fired rifles, fired at a known distance, in perfect weather, by a specialist shot, almost certainly using hand made ammunition, at a bright target and using a scope to see the target. Not exactly typical combat conditions.

Personally, the best that I have done was a 92 at 900 and 500 yards with a grouping of about 30 inches at 900 yards and 18 inches at 500 yards, our rifles were held in the prone position not rested and the ammunition purchased. This is closer to combat but as I have said the sights whilst not telescopic were for target shooting, the weather was pretty good, the target clear and I was an experienced shot although mostly with a .22. 

Your average solider would do well to spot a target at 500 yards let alone hit it first time.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2009)

The videos are all very impressive, I will say. A small point, the second is at 1000 yds, but there is no verfication of the targets hits, except for the guys saying "got it". It might not be the case that he actually got it.......


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> Soren
> Your examples prove the point. They are Bench fired rifles, fired at a known distance, in perfect weather, by a specialist shot, almost certainly using hand made ammunition, at a bright target and using a scope to see the target. Not exactly typical combat conditions.
> 
> Personally, the best that I have done was a 92 at 900 and 500 yards with a grouping of about 30 inches at 900 yards and 18 inches at 500 yards, our rifles were held in the prone position not rested and the ammunition purchased. This is closer to combat but as I have said the sights whilst not telescopic were for target shooting, the weather was pretty good, the target clear and I was an experienced shot although mostly with a .22.
> ...



The videos just prove what I've been saying, nothing more, nothing less. The effective range of a rifle is around 1,000 to 1,200 meters, which is what Hitler was referring to each time he had to argue for the K98k. He however missed out on the fact that most combats took place at 300 to 400 meters, and thus a 1,200 meter effective range wasn't needed in most cases.

The rifles above were fired with ammunition no better than war time ammunition for the rifles in question (K31 K98k) and at a torso sized targets (18 inches). 

When shooting with open sights I always shoot with V sights, and when prone I can with very good consistency hit a human sized target at 600 meters. At 1,000 meters it's hard to see the target, but I can nonetheless hit it (Still the same type human silhouette target). With a scope I can hit a human sized target at 1,000m with very good consistency. 

And like already mentioned German snipers were required to hit a head sized target at 400 meters without fail, and a torso sized target at 600 meters without fail. If they couldn't achieve this then they weren't applicable for the title of Scharfschützen.


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The videos are all very impressive, I will say. A small point, the second is at 1000 yds, but there is no verfication of the targets hits, except for the guys saying "got it". It might not be the case that he actually got it.......



Parsifal I know the guy, he's a friend of mine, he got it, you can trust me on that. You can also hear the *gong*.

And yes, he's a great shot!


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2009)

Soren
I doff my hat to you. Thats close to national team standard shooting with less accurate sights, without a tuned rifle and presumably limited coaching, you may want to take it up seriously.


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

Glider,

It aint that great, if you got good eyesight and a steady hand you can easily hit a human silhouette at 600m with a full powered rifle. At 1,000m it's very hard indeed, esp. since the target is damn hard to see, but again with a full powered rifle you CAN hit it. With a scope however it is a lot easier because you can actually clearly see the target.

As for the sights, V sights are the most accurate iron sights there are if you ask me. I don't care much for peep sights.

PS: When shooting long range I always shoot with some kind of support for the rifle, be it a sandbag or bench. We always used sandbags on the range in the military.


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2009)

That explains it, in competition you are not allowed to rest the gun, it has to be held and that makes a huge difference.


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

Tell me about it! Without something to rest my rifle on I'd struggle to hit a man at 500 meters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2009)

I would argue with your assesment of Iron sights. 

The rear peep offers several advantages. And if it is ajustable in size it offers even more.

Using peep (or aperture sights) on a target range with a defined aiming point there is often little to chose betweent eh "iron sights" and the scope. 

ON a very lucky day when I was test firing a Palma rifle with intent to purchase I fired 22 rounds. After using 12 to settle in and ajust the rifle to me the last 10 shots scored a 98 with 5X at 1000yds. 50% in a 10in circle at 1000yds. Iron sights, prone with sling. 

Yes, I bought the rifle

Is this practical battle field shooting? NO

But what is effective range? 

At 1000yds how many rounds does a MG fire to cause ONE casualty? 

Why does a rifle have to a much higher hit rate in order to be considered effective?

If 5 men each shooting 10 rounds per minute can put ALL their bullets in, say a 5 meter x 5 meter sqaure at 1000meters, wouldn't that be close to the supresive fire of a MG? 

IF hits only count then many armies has wasted a lot of ammunition in supresive fire over the years.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 13, 2009)

General-issue weapons cease to be personal weapons beyond 600m, at this point they are section weapons and you're not expected to hit anything with an iron-sight weapon unless you're employing co-operative fire ie firing on the target as a section.

That was SOP for the SLR, no idea if anything's changed for the SA-80 which is generally more accurate but hardly what I'd call a proper battlefield weapon.


----------



## Soren (Jul 13, 2009)

Shortround,

My opinion is that the V sight offers greater accuracy than the peep sight, at least it does for me and several of my friends. The peep sight allows for too much slacking/guesswork if you ask me. With the V sight you know that everything is 100% when the pointer is lined up with the top of the rear sight and in the middle, something which should be easy if you got good eyesight. That's my honest opinion.


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2009)

Shortround
That is really good shooting, well done.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> Shortround,
> 
> My opinion is that the V sight offers greater accuracy than the peep sight, at least it does for me and several of my friends. The peep sight allows for too much slacking/guesswork if you ask me. With the V sight you know that everything is 100% when the pointer is lined up with the top of the rear sight and in the middle, something which should be easy if you got good eyesight. That's my honest opinion.



I will note that I have never seen a V sight on a serious target range. I have been to the American National matches (small bore) 6 times. The Canadian nationals 2 twice (full bore), several trips to Australia including being allowed to fire at the 1991 Oceanic Continental Shooting Championships ( not really allowed to compete for some awards becasue I was from the wrong part of the world, saved myself some embarrasement
I have also helped coach junior and high school teams for over 20 years. 

I will grant that none of this is combat shooting but we are discussing sights aren't we.

Look through a peep sight, all you have to line up is the front sight and the target. Eye only has to focus on the front sight (at what distance?) and let the target go a little fuzzy. Young shooters may not even notice target is blurry.
V sight shooter has to line up three things, and has to focus eye at three distances.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2009)

Glider said:


> Shortround
> That is really good shooting, well done.



Thank you. 
A calm day. Good hand loads from a freind ( I didn't own a .308 at the time) and a very good rifle. 

And a bit of luck


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 13, 2009)

Regarding peep sights versus open sights, the National Match aperture sights on a M1 / M14 are adjustable to 0.5 MOA for windage and elevation because someone obviously believes you can see the difference. I don't think you can see the difference with open sights. I also have never seen any with such fine adjustments. Have any of you seen them?

BTW, regarding Palma Match ammunition and .308 Winchester. I believe that all the components are interchangeable, but I don't think Palma ammunition is loaded to .308 SAAMI specs. I know that the chambering reamers (especially in the throat) are different.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2009)

Palma match ammo may be loaded to higher pressures and velocities. The rifles may be chamered to slightly tighter specs. The rules have changed over the years, ay one point the competitors were supposed to use NATO spec ammo + or- a certain tolerance which is were the 155 grain bullet came from. For quite a number of years the host country supplied the ammo to the competitors to even things out so at that time it didn't pay to have too special a chamber. Many countries may have slightly different rules and the "Palma" match at the National Matches in the U.S. only shares the name, distance and caliber of barrel (30 cal magnums were and may still be allowed).

The chambers may be up to the individual gunsmith. I do know in Canada at one of their matches we were issued ammo so again, you don't want to get to tight or ticky with the dimensions of the chamber. Tighter than military yes8)


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I will note that I have never seen a V sight on a serious target range. I have been to the American National matches (small bore) 6 times. The Canadian nationals 2 twice (full bore), several trips to Australia including being allowed to fire at the 1991 Oceanic Continental Shooting Championships ( not really allowed to compete for some awards becasue I was from the wrong part of the world, saved myself some embarrasement
> I have also helped coach junior and high school teams for over 20 years.
> 
> I will grant that none of this is combat shooting but we are discussing sights aren't we.
> ...



None the less V sights permit more accurate shooting if you have good eyesight. That is my experience, and because of it I prefer V sights over peep sights.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 14, 2009)

V sights are better for close, snap shooting, but for long range the peep sight is much better.


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> None the less V sights permit more accurate shooting if you have good eyesight. That is my experience, and because of it I prefer V sights over peep sights.



Soren
If this was the case they would be used in contests. You will never see any serious target shooter use a V sight be it a .22 or a full bore shooter, be it prone or three position. You will never hear a coach train anyone on one.
If you think that you can match a target shooter using a V sight I suggest you go down to your local target shooting club, join and you will see the difference.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Glider don't job to conclusions.

There is no need for it, I have plenty of experience with both types of sights Glider. The difference between the two is that the peep sight is easier to use while the V sight permits more accurate shooting if you have good eyesight. 

What trainers train other with is of no concern, they train people in what they know about, and they are most likely used to peep sights and not V sights. That's the problem with V sights, not many people are used to them or have even tried them. 

V sights was the first type of sight I started shooting with and thus I learned to use it correctly. Many people dont know how.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Glider,

I was looking at some target aperture sights today and I can tell you that they are nothing like the peep sights put on military rifles. The peep hole is way smaller on the target aperture sight compared to any miltary peep sight I have ever layed eyes on. There's no comparison.

The sights I looked at looked just like this one:


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2009)

If you didn't know until today what a target aperture sight even looked like than how can you claim that V sights are more accurate?

Kind of throws doubt on the rest of your arguements.

By the way, several of my friends have shot on the All gaurd rifle team. That is the National National guard team from all 50 states. They would laugh at the idea of using a V sight. THey used M-14s and M-16s for many years and in some interservice matchs worked over match guns (called national match rifles ) were not allowed so they use issue rifles with issue sights.


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2009)

Soren
Now you know why Shortround and I both admit that target apature sights are not suitable on military rifles. However now you know why I have said that with the scores you are getting with a V sight, you should join a club, get some coaching and take it up as a sport.

PS the one you showed is a very basic one but will do the job. Modern ones are very sophisticated


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> If you didn't know until today what a target aperture sight even looked like than how can you claim that V sights are more accurate?



I've never participated in any civil target shooting competitions Shortround, so how was I supposed to know the kind of sights used in such competitions intimately ? I will however let you know that I have participated in litterally thousands of military target practices, and not one was with that type of aperture sight. It was with military std. peep sights, the ones you find on rifles like the M-14. And I can tell you for a fact that the V sight fairs better than this for a man with good eyesight who knows how to operate it. 



> Kind of throws doubt on the rest of your arguements.



Please enlighten me on how it throws any doubt on my arguments considering that this discussion was about military rifles and not civil match rifles?

If anything it just casts doubts on to your understanding of the topic at hand. 



> By the way, several of my friends have shot on the All gaurd rifle team. That is the National National guard team from all 50 states. They would laugh at the idea of using a V sight. THey used M-14s and M-16s for many years and in some interservice matchs worked over match guns (called national match rifles ) were not allowed so they use issue rifles with issue sights.



I could care less about what they do in the states Shortround, over there not many people know how to properly operate a V sight. Over here in Europe more people do as more rifles feature these kinds of sights. 

And your friends can laugh all they want, but I'd like to see them score higher than we did on the 600 meter course with V sights contra their std. issue peep sights.

Case closed.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Glider said:


> Soren
> Now you know why Shortround and I both admit that target apature sights are not suitable on military rifles. However now you know why I have said that with the scores you are getting with a V sight, you should join a club, get some coaching and take it up as a sport.



Glider, the scores I'm getting with either V sights or peep sights are nothing out of the ordinary, don't fool yourself. My scores are in the high end, I'm a seasoned shooter, but I am not some kind of rare natural talent as many of my former colleagues shoot just as-well or better than I do. 

There's no reason to play smart on this, I've got over 20 years of experience shooting with smallarms ranging from small pistols to large caliber anti mat personnel rifles. And I'd wager that I've tried just about every type of military iron sight that has ever been issued since the beginning of the 1900's. 

If you want a fair comparison I can tell you that I own a shoot two K98k's one Mk4 Enfield(Recently exchanged one for a C96 Pistol), and I always score better with the K98ks using iron sights. The V sight simply feels better more precise for me. Now I know that accuracy also depends on the rifle, but these rifles are in mint condition (Otherwise I would have never bought them), and I know that in terms of accuracy the K98k No.4 Enfield were top of the line during WW2, the best there was. The results I got with scopes mounted just also varifies it, it was largely the same at 400m shooting the same type of projectile (Sierra MK). 



> PS the one you showed is a very basic one but will do the job. Modern ones are very sophisticated



I have no doubt that they are, but they are not used in the military and thus have no relevance in this discussion.

A view through a std. issue peep sight, and this one I am all too familiar with(Similar to the one on the M16 except that you can flip over to a smaller rear peep sight on the M16, allowing a little more accuracy at distance):





Having a look through one of those civilian match aperture sights and one will realize there is no comparison at all. It's a whole different ball park. The civilian aperture sights wouldn't last a day in the military and would be useless against anything but a clear target.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2009)

From Sorens post # 91

"As for the sights, V sights are the most accurate iron sights there are if you ask me. I don't care much for peep sights."

Now, nowhere in that statement is there anything about miltary sights. 

I would think that in evaluating a sight system you would want to eleminate all the other variables so you are elvauating the sights alone. 

Since you admit you are unfamilar with the arperture sights that hardly constitutes a fair comparison.

You might also want to look at the last picture you posted and think a moment. 

Lets consider a few advantages of the peep sight. 

1. a longer sight radius so that the same apparent misalignment is actually a smaller angle. 
2. the previously mentioned "one less thing to line up and focus on" 
3. Back to the picture. a better field of view. Take the top of hte ring of but fill in the bottom so all you have left is a narrow notch pretty much filled in with the post. just how much are you going to see on either side of your aiming point or below it. 

Now a wide open battle sight will be a little less precise than a tiny target aperture but if you think it makes a huge difference you don't understand how/why aperture sights work. You would be surprised what you can do with a target sight even unscrewing the large disk and aiming throught the threaded hole it came out of. 

The Mauser sight with the inverted v front and the v notch rear is also rather hard to use in poor light. 

You don't have to believe my experience but then I don't have to believe yours either. While coaching I also worked part time in the gun store at the largest commercial range on the East coast. I have heard all the BS stories from guys who claimed they could light kitchen matches with their open sight 22 at 50 yds standing. EVERY TIME. I just smiled and nodded which is what I am going to do now.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

Shortround, laughing is good for the health, so good for you.

I wonder if my friend from the youtube channel will ever stop laughing after reading your responses however, even if they are typical for US shooters.

Man those V sights sure are hard inaccurate to use 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-Lcvyrifw_ 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsomougcK6E_

Upper torso sized target, 6 hits out of 7 shots at 640 yards and 2 hits out of 6 shots at 1,000 yards with a V sight, try doing that any better with a std. military issue peep sight. I'd sure like to see it!


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2009)

Laugh all you like Soren but he is right. When coaching with a .22 in extreme cases I would sometimes make the shooter fire without a rear sight. When they scored 80+ on a 25 yard target, would give them a basic rear sight with a large aperture and when they averaged 95+ would let them use all the options on a modern Iris.

The main reason for a smaller aperture has nothing to do with accuracy at a distance, its to do with the amount of light that is on the eye. In poor light conditions the rear aperture should be opened up, in bright conditions closed down. I have never handled an M16 let alone shot one but its probable that the reason for an optional smaller aperture is for shooting in bright conditions, not for more accuracy at long ranges.

Even in target shooting there is a belief that a smaller aperture is more accurate but thats a false belief and why as mentione above I start training with a large aperture rear sight.


----------



## Soren (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm not the one who brought up the laughing Glider. And seeing that you two are both civilian target match shooters it doesn't really say much that you support each other, I can understand that. 

Shortround however needs to try the std. military sights before he becomes cocky and starts playing smart about stuff he has limited knowledge about. Shortrounds lack of belief in the V sight's capabilities and mockery of my performance in the field only reinforces the fact that he has probably never tried target shooting with this kind of sight before.

Fact is that I have achieved better results with std. issue iron V sights at distances of 100, 200, 400, 600 1000 meters than I ever have with any std. issue peep sight, and so have several of my former colleagues. It's as simple as that Glider, and it's field experience. 

The best I have ever done with iron sights was probably when I scored 7 hits out of 10 consecutive shots at a human silhouette target exactly 800 meters away, this with a V sight, rested rifle and in prone position. I consider that above average, I dunno about you.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2009)

You guys know more than I do, but I just find it difficult to believe that effective battle ranges of over 1000 yds were considered feasible, even with a full powered rifle like the Mauser, using open sights.

I have never fired in competition, and have not picked up a rifle in over ten years, however, when I was in the navy, I trained to lead boarding parties. These are the guys you see coming alongside illegal fishermen and the like to search and apprehend drug runners, illegal fishermen, pirates, that kind of thing. As a seaborne policeman, my life got interesting on more than one occasion. So even though I reject the "gun culture" almost in its entirety, Ive been around them and have been pretty comprehensively trained on a range of different weapons. Before I was assigned to these duties, I was required to complete firstly a gunnery (small arms) course, and then the advanced small arms training. I was trained on a number of different weapons, but the most frequently used were the 9mm Browning pistol, the F-1 Thompson and Owen SMGs, the L1A1 (SLR) and a few shots out of the Full auto variant . We also trained with various grenades and had a few shots out the US M-16, and a colt 45. We had some training, but not much, on the Bren, and the the M-60. We also learnt how to operate the 50 cal, a huge HMG that scared the living daylights out of me.....it just makes one hell of a noise, and shakes the living daylights out of you. It fires what I can only describe as small artillery shells......

We also learnt to shoot using the old Lee Enfield. These were a marvellous gun, but as I recall some of the guns had been reduced to 22 caliber.....dont know how, but I do recall how much less recoil they had in comparison to the full powered rifles.

Finally we did quite a bit of training with clay targets, using 12 gauge shotguns. I remember thinking this was odd, but the idea appareantly was to train us as "instinctive shooters....this was to literally save my life subsequently. We found that situations often required instinctive shooting rather sighted shooting.

The SLR was a rifle designed for a medium powered round that at the last minute had been upgraded to the standard NATO 7.62 mm round. I found it consequently a handful to manage. It tended to be lively on the range, and took some training to get the best out of it. By comparison the old Lee Enfield was heavier, but with a more powerful round (I think). The relatively heavy weight of the weapon made it more controllable, and from the users point more accurate.

The most accurate of the rifles was in fact the 22 caliber lee enfield training rifles that were were introduced to. Though the round was smaller and lighter, the heavy weiight of the weapon, and the light caliber and power of the round made it very easy to handle, and consequently it was always very easy to hit targets with this gun. I suspect this was why the Navy had them....to get the confidence of recruits up, before moving onto the more tricky weapons 

I found the following description of the SLR on the net (the link is at the bottom of the page). It has an effective battle range of 300 metres, and a maximum range of 656 metres. This explains why we were trained to a high level of accuracy out to 450 metres....not that we would ever have engaged even land targets at that range. Rifles in my experience are seldom used much beyond 250 metres in real battle situations.

This is why I find it hard to accept that the germans were training or expecting standard line formations, or even snipers to effectively engage out past 1200 metres. Over open sights I say that is just impossible. With very high powered scopes, and under the most ideal of conditions...ie a target range, possibly, but in battle, I just find it hard to accept, knowing as I do just how hard it is to hit things with military issue weapons at that range 

_The L1A1 is the Australian version of the Belgian FN FAL rifle. It entered into service with the Australian Army in 1959. The L1A1 was a reliable, hard-hitting, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a maximum battle range of 300 metres and a practical rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. In Vietnam the L1A1 was the standard personal weapon of the Australian soldier. With a full 20 round magazine it weighed 4.96Kg. The standard issue was 5 magazines per rifleman but almost all carried as many filled magazines that they could get their hands on, often dispensing with food rations in order to find room for the extra ammunition. The rational to this was that the extra 7.62 mm rounds fired from an SLR rifle would do more damage than throwing a can of Ham and Lima Beans. 

Type: Battle rifle
Place of origin: Belgium
Wars: Cold War, Vietnam War, Falklands War
Designed: 1951
Manufacturer: Fabrique Nationale (FN)
Produced: 1953—
Number built: Over 1 million
Weight: 4.0–4.96 kg (8.8–10.2 lb)
Length: 1,090 mm (43 in)
Barrel length: 533 mm (21 in)
Cartridge: 7.62 × 51 mm NATO
Calibre: 7.62 mm (.308 in)
Action: Gas-operated, tilting block
Rate of fire: 20 rounds/min semi auto
Muzzle velocity: 823 m/s (2,700 ft/s)
Effective range: 600 m (656 yd)
Feed system: 20-round detachable box magazine
Sights: Aperture rear sight, hooded post front sight_

http://www.5rar.asn.au/weapons/slr.htmaly 

I also vaguely seem to recall that some of the enfields had open v-sights, and some were fitted with SLR type peep sights. 

I didnt do much training on the V- sights, and it was a long time ago. But I recall coming to the conclusion that the Peep sights were much easier to use, and consequently the accuracy of the squad as a whole went up. 

With the SLR we were initially required to hit a standard head sized target out to 250 metres, I think we had to achieve a standard of at least 8 out of 10 hits on the target. For the advanced course this range was increased to 450 metres. Nearly everyone had a great deal of difficulty achieving that standard, and it usually took many trips to the range, before we passed this test. Only about half the class actually passed the course to be honest, so hitting targets at that range is not an easy thing to do.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 14, 2009)

IMO, the peep sight is more accurate because there is no rear sight blocking out half of what you're aiming at.. I have experience with both and I shoot better with a peep sight...


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2009)

I found this information with respect to the K-98 Mauser. The web link is at the bottom of the page

_This rifle came equipped with two sling swivels, a curved tangent-type rear sight (also known as the “Lange Visier“) and open front sights. The Mauser Gewer 98 was derived from the experimental, not so very popular, Gewehr 96 Rifle. The muzzle velocity of the rifle was 878m/s and the cartridge used was the 7.92×57mm Mauser. The rifle came in 3 configurations, as follows: Kar 98a, Kar 98b and Kar 98k. The effective range was 500 m (about 547 yards) using iron sights and 800+ m (about 875 yards) using optics. _

Mauser Rifles Hunting Rifles Reviews > Rifle Brands

So, is the does the Mauser only have an effective range of 500 metres over open sights, or, is this review wrong?????


----------



## Amsel (Jul 15, 2009)

I don't agree with the article. The maximum effective range over ironsights depends on the person who is shooting. If he can see farther to line the sights up then I think 700 meters over ironsights and 1,000+ with optics seems more like it.


----------



## Soren (Jul 15, 2009)

The effective range of the K98k is over 1200 meters with a scope and about 800 meters with iron sights. The effective range of a weapon pretty much refers to the range at with it can be aimed out to accurately enough to be considered a real hazard to the intended target. Machine guns usually have longer effective ranges for this reason as they usually get to pour 10 or more rounds at the target in about a second.

The effective range of the MG34 MG42 fired with a bipod is for example 1200 meters while mounted on a tripod it is 3500+ meters. It's no wonder the British refered to them as cannons in the African desert campaign.


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2009)

Soren said:


> The best I have ever done with iron sights was probably when I scored 7 hits out of 10 consecutive shots at a human silhouette target exactly 800 meters away, this with a V sight, rested rifle and in prone position. I consider that above average, I dunno about you.



I have never done any bench firing apart from when finding the best ammunition for a rifle or tuning a barrel. That said I believe the world record for bench firing at 1000 yards is just under 5 inches.

However, these are specially made rifles with unlimited magnification on the sights. The rifles are very heavy, often handmade and sometimes include exotic materials in their design and come with a trigger pressure measured in ounces. The ammunition is hand loaded to extraordinary tolerances and in some types of contest the rifle is cleaned after every round. These rifles come if two classes, light and heavy but if I recall correctly light is still under about 18/19 pounds, as for heavy I have no idea what the limit is.

So if you can get 7 out of ten at a target about 15 inches square at 800 yards, with a rubbish (because it is compared to any target rifle) sight, on an old rifle, firing shop purchased ammunition, using a sandbag as a rest instead of a tailored bechsupport and no coaching on a regular basis, you, as I have said a number of times, should think about taking it up seriously.


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2009)

It's the best I've ever done with iron sights, and it was with handloaded ammunition, Sierra Matchking projectiles, not surplus (Not that I think that matters actually), on a military range. But I'd say luck had a lot to do with it as I've never had such a high hit rate at that range ever before or after. As far as I can remember there wasn't much wind that day either, around 2 m/s if any at all.

That having been said nearly all 7 hits were potentially lethal, some a lot more than others. One round struck in the neck area and was definitely a deadly shot, another 4 struck around the torso/arms (One almost directly centermass) and 2 in the legs. So yeah, it was a good day, I certainly had the bragging rights that day.

As for competition shooting, I'd like to try it sometime just for the fun of it, but in general I don't really have time for it. Also my nephew went to some in his younger days but IIRC ranges were around 15 meters with a .22 LR rifle. Now that's just boring if you ask me  I love it when you hit something so far away that you have a hard time even seeing it with the naked eye


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2009)

15 yards is normally for air rifles. Using a .22 LR the ranges are up to 100 yards which can be difficult with the size of the targets when doing three position shooting.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 18, 2009)

Hi Soren, et al.

Have you ever seen a M14 or M21 sniper rifle with the National Match sights? They come in two aperture diameter diameters: .0595 inch and .0520 inch. They were issued with the US Military in Vietnam. I believe the .0520 which I prefer was issued less because with a small aperture, the sights are not as useful in less than perfect light. There is no question about their durability in my opinion. With the NM/2A bases, the windage was adjustable to 1/2 MOA and the sight hood itself was turnable to adjust elevation to 1/2 MOA. These were the aperture sights I was trying to describe in an earlier message.

The M1903 Springfield rifle also comes with a rather precise open AND Aperture sight. I don't think those are as useful because precise adjustment requires a special tool. (There are no click adjustments.) With the tool properly used, the sights are excellent.

I suggest you try those out before concluding that all military aperture sights are less precise than open sights.

BTW, in case folks here think I am picking on Soren, there ARE target rifles with open V sights. Swedish Mausers sometimes come with them. The elevation adjustment is via about a 3/4 inch wheel on a vertical axis under the sight leaf.

I have shot guns with all of the sights I just described. My personal pick is the .0520 Aperture on the M14 / M1 / M21 rifles.

Now what does this have to do with a Bren or BAR???
- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2009)

I don't believe that all aperture sights are less precise than V sights, but the std. military issue aperture sights certainly are in my experience.


----------



## MacArther (Jul 19, 2009)

Continuing the topic as per the name of the thread, what of the BESAL Mk II? Even the BESAL Mk I? Weight for the Mk II was 20.5 lbs (don't know if that is loaded or unloaded), and with the British .303 round it reached out (from book once again) to around 1000 meters. It was basically a much simplified Bren, yet there is very little mention of it in any of my books, except as an anecdote about the Bren. Despite being a simplification, the weapon had a higher theoretical rpm of 600 vs the Bren's 500. Also, the mentioned heavy machining of the breech block was done away with and instead there was a simple square section for the breech block (rather than whatever machined shape it was for the Bren).

My point is to ask whether or not this would have been a substitute for the Bren or the Bar?

BESAL Mk II


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 19, 2009)

MacArther said:


> Continuing the topic as per the name of the thread, what of the BESAL Mk II? Even the BESAL Mk I? Weight for the Mk II was 20.5 lbs (don't know if that is loaded or unloaded), and with the British .303 round it reached out (from book once again) to around 1000 meters. It was basically a much simplified Bren, yet there is very little mention of it in any of my books, except as an anecdote about the Bren. Despite being a simplification, the weapon had a higher theoretical rpm of 600 vs the Bren's 500. Also, the mentioned heavy machining of the breech block was done away with and instead there was a simple square section for the breech block (rather than whatever machined shape it was for the Bren).
> 
> My point is to ask whether or not this would have been a substitute for the Bren or the Bar?



Axis History Forum • View topic - Besal machine-gun
See the above link (and child links) about the Besal.


----------

