I interesting read on quick change barrel for the BAR

[Norton]

BAR Swede.jpgBAR with cutts.jpglarge mag BAR.jpg the


Before leaving "the greatest generation" off-the-hook, was there a way to fix the M1918 BAR to make it into a LMG capable of sustained fire? Did we have to wait 6 decades for something the Germans had all along?

The answer you will see is YES



http://www.combatreform.org/lightmachineguns.htm

[BattleBornArms]

I have some real problems with the website linked above
Clearly the U.S. Army Major E. Paul Melody, and the author of that website article clearly do not understand what the B.A.R. was created for, and most importantly when it was created.

Let's use that clear examination of the facts to learn something to help us for today and the future. Then U.S. Army Major, E. Paul Melody in his excellent 1990 School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) paper explains why U.S. infantry in WW2 that had 20-round magazine-fed, fixed barrel, often bipod-less, Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) which while shooting the powerful 7.62x82mm (30.06) cartridge was not as good as German infantry which had the belt-fed, large caliber 7.92mm MG42 light machine guns (LMGs) with pistol grips--whose barrels could be changed for sustained fires to keep their opponents pinned down. Thousands of our men died or were maimed because of this.

first of all, the B.A.R. was invented in 1917 and was meant to fill a gap between
1. bolt action rifles
2. heavy machine guns such as the Browning 1917, Vickers, and Maxim on the German side

It was miles ahead of anything the German army had at the time, and was never meant to be a sustained fire weapon when it was invented. It was never intended to have quick change barrels for sustained fire - that role was filled by the heavy machine guns which were issued spare barrels.
The B.A.R. was meant to serve the same role as the Chauchat, or the Hotchkiss 1909 Benet Mercie, and that is of a machine rifle for walking fire.




i quote the following from Rock In A Hard Place from James L. Ballou from page 20

The original Machine Rifle concept as envisoned by JM Browning, and indeed by some officers in the U.S. War Dept. in 1917, was to equip all infantrymen with a portable, shoulder fired rifle firing the standard full power 30 06 military rifle cartridge and capable of delivering selective semi and full automatic modes of high firepower. A skirmish line of troops, each man armed with a machine rifle, would advance on enemy territory employing what was then known as "walking fire", as developed by the French army. Initially each weapon was to be fired semiautomatically, forcing the enemy to keep there heads down. If return fire was received, or during the actual closing with the enemy in the final phase of the assault, the selectors on the rifles were to be switched to full automatic, allowing the skirmish line to deliver massive bursts of assault fire of relatively short duration. Essentially, this is the same search by fire philosophy practised by the U.S. Army today, and was also standard Soviet frontal assault doctrine. John Browning knew that for a shoulder fired weapon to fulfill the "walking fire" or machine rifle role in actual combat environment with the powerful 30 06 military cartridge, the gun would have to be robust, moderately heavy to absorb recoil, posess quickly changeable, high capacity magazines, and be as reliable as possible in the dirty, wet, and muddy conditions so often encountered in trench warfare. His original model had been admirably well thought out with these goals in view, as witness the fact that most of his original conceptions later stood the test of over a half century of combat use with little or no alteration.

See, the B.A.R. was invented for a role that didnt require pistol grips, or quick change barrels. It was meant to be carried at the waist and fired from the hip, and anybody who has ever tried to do that understands that a pistol grip is not needed to fire the rifle like that. Its actually less ergonomic than holding the pistol grip less stock. And quick change barrels and sustained fire? That was the roll of the heavy machine gun.

The stupid American Army and marines in love with deer hunting rifles did not until after losing thousands of men in WW2 and Korea due to being ambushed and losing on the draw.

I find this very offensive, and it makes the author look ignorant because the U.S. did indeed add a pistol grip, and a quick change barrel long before the Poles, Belgians, and the Swedes did. In fact, Colt's made most of the B.A.R.s for other countries.
He has the 40 round magazine as being Polish also which is incorrect, that is US made and was invented in 1917. It did not fit into the role of what the U.S. military used the machine rifle for, and was delegated to anti aircraft use only.
The interwar period gave the gun makers no military contracts to fulfill and production shifted from government contracts to civilian sales.
Colt's of Hartford Connecticut produced some of the highest quaility commercial firearms ever during the interwar period, and they added things to there firearms that the miltiary did not need. The quality of there firearms was never higher and this is why a 1921 Colt Thompson machine gun is desireable over the military versions because the quality is so much better. They also made commercial variations of the Browning 1917 machine gun, the 1911 pistol, and the B.A.R. for commercial sales.
in 1919 Colt's developed the R 75 A which was a commercial variation of the 1917 B.A.R. which included a pistol grip, and a finned quick change barrel which is what the Belgians based there FN-D off of, and the Swedes based there B.A.R. off of.

The U.S. war department didnt see the need for alot of things that the commercial market saw. The U.S. war department at one point deemed that the full automatic feature of the B.A.R. was not needed, and it was actually more effective in semi automatic only fire (and amazingly, the U.S. Armed forces still feel this way. to this date they teach troops that semi automatic fire is more effective than full automatic fire, and they removed the function of full automatic fire on there M16 and cut it down to ammo saving 3 round burst).
The Browning 1917 machine gun had a slide safety invented for it and was not deemed necessary, and thought that it would be more complicated trying to fumble to get the safety disengaged when you needed the gun the most so they deleted the safety on the heavy browning machine gun, but all of Colt's commercial Brownings had a safety on them.

It's really not fair to compare a German MG42 with the B.A.R. like the author does, because there is 25 years of improvement in between the 2 guns. I do not believe the author understands that the B.A.R. was invented in ww1 in 1917 long before the Germans had anything man portable with quick change barrels and high capacity feeding like the MG42.
It would be much more fair to compare the Browning 1919a6 to the MG42, and even though the MG34 and MG42 had barrels that were faster to change than the Browning 1917, or 1919, everything the Germans ever invented was more complicated than the US gear, and it is a huge reason why they lost the war. It took much longer to make than the US stuff, and the actions were more complicated than the US stuff, and we were able to put more guns on the line faster than the Germans which played a large part in why we won the war.
Another example of this was the tanks. There Tiger tanks were so superior to our Sherman tanks it wasnt even funny, but we were able to put out so many more Sherman tanks that we won that war by quantity. The Germans were devastated by the U.S. war machine, and just because something has more features than something else, doesnt necessarily make it better.

[Norton]

I have some real problems with the website linked above
Clearly the U.S. Army Major E. Paul Melody, and the author of that website article clearly do not understand what the B.A.R. was created for, and most importantly when it was created.
.

Good reply BattleBornArms

Oh yes I know it is a very opinionated read and even was unsure if I should post it. He must have an AX to grind.
I agree the BAR was not a LMG, rather a automatic rifle in it's purest form. A rifle that could give supressive fire to support bolt action armed troops on offensive squad movements or an anchor point and base of fire for defensive postions. I assume the Lewis gun would be the true American LMG at the time even though the USA displayed little interest in it at first.With that said, I thought the other nation's BAR type auto rifles were very interesting. Also I had not seen these modifications except on the Belgian FN -D.