Bren vs BAR

[Amsel]

The Marines used the BAR.

 

[Deanimator]

The Marines used the BAR.

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

 

[Deanimator]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[gjs238]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.