Bren vs BAR

[Soren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.