Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I found a thing...from Spain...

I just picked up some new manufactured hk-91 mags (30 rounders) from cheaperthandirt.com for $9 each on their Christmas special.

I got this little bad boy for Christmas:



I'm going to be out of the country for the next week so I won't be able to shoot it until I return after the New Year, but I'm looking forward to getting some time in with it!

Nice. I tried firing a Springfield subcompact in .45 and it was not an entirely pleasant experience

Wife sent me this from Afghanistan:



"Antique' jezail/camel gun.

Looks like the lock and barrel may be original, some of the brass is, some not.

Will be purely decoration, no way I trust it to fire...

Very cool

I like it. Would rather of had the wife make it home for the holiday (she was supposed to redeploy 2 weeks ago but got extended) but it definitely was a cool gift choice from her.

OK, I have a gun rant here, but don't worry, it's not political, it's historical, it's OT, and specifically, it's a gun comparison rant.

Now, most of us on dakka are wargamers, and some of us play Bolt Action and FOW.

In both those games, the US army gets bonuses to firepower/ moving and shooting, for having its infantry platoons armed with BARs and automatic rifles.

I have no problem with US infantrymen getting the bonus for having the automatic rifles, they are impressive weapons, tried and tested in the heat of war, and justify the bonus. But a bonus for being armed with a BAR?

Not for me.

This is where you guys come in, and I'm interested in other people's opinions, because it's obviously an American weapon, and some of you guys may own or have fired a BAR. I've done neither. My knowledge of the BAR is based on youtube videos and history books.

But in comparison to the weapons of other armies of the era, I feel the game bonus for being armed with a BAR is not justified.

The BAR is obviously a portable weapon, almost a light machine gun, and can be fired either stationary or on the move.

But the Bren gun is also light enough for one man to carry and fire on the move, and it's better IMO.

The MG34 is also light enough for one man to carry and fire, and churns out a hell of a number of rounds.

Even the Red Army had a easy carry light machine gun similar to the BAR.

Essentially, I'm comparing the BAR Vs. Bren gun Vs. MG34 and wondering why the dakka the US infantry is getting this bonus in FOW and Bolt Action, because IMO it's not historically justified.

Some of you guys will have fired or owned BAR/BREN/MG34

so your opinions on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

I don't know about the others personally but the BAR is a heavy mother. I saw guys in films doing walking fire but just standing and holding it was effort and I was a manly man at the time.

Different training and doctrines.

Germans did not train to use the MG34 while walking, and did not have doctrine in place to support that use.

Same with Brits and the Bren.

Probably a decent topic for it own discussion in the historical game board instead of polluting this thread with it though.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't know about the others personally but the BAR is a heavy mother. I saw guys in films doing walking fire but just standing and holding it was effort and I was a manly man at the time.

That's the conclusion I drew as well. It's important for me to point out that I've never been within a hundred miles of a BAR in my life, but having watched 2 gun action matches on youtube (inrangetv) they didn't like it either, and those guys speak a lot of sense 99% of the time.

They concluded that the BAR was clunky, awkward, the sight was awful, and that total respect should be accorded to all the US marines/infantrymen who had to use it in WW2. They also pointed out that the US military had done nothing to modernise the BAR during the 1920/30s and that ironically, it was the Belgians with their version of the BAR, that made the necessary upgrades.

Thanks for the feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Different training and doctrines.

Germans did not train to use the MG34 while walking, and did not have doctrine in place to support that use.

Same with Brits and the Bren.

Probably a decent topic for it own discussion in the historical game board instead of polluting this thread with it though.

Polluting?

This is a thread for discussing firearms. I'm comparing the merits of 3 different firearms.

With all due respect, I feel this is the right place for such a discussion.

If not here, where?

The concept of a squad level light machine gun/machine rifle starts in WWI. All parties had a version of it by WWII. Some were heavier, some were lighter, but they had similar concepts.

 Frazzled wrote:
The concept of a squad level light machine gun/machine rifle starts in WWI. All parties had a version of it by WWII. Some were heavier, some were lighter, but they had similar concepts.

Comparing the merits of the 3 weapons, we see the following:

BAR: 20 round mag, 300 Rounds per minute.

Bren: 30 round mag, 500 rounds per minute

MG34: belt feed, 800-900 rounds per minute

Granted, the BAR is fractionally lighter than the other 2, but damn it, it seems 'inferior' in almost every other regard.

Perhaps it's best to see the BAR as level above a rifle, but below your typical light machine gun, but then you could argue that the Bren could have been used in a similar fashion, as there's not much between a Bren and a BAR in many respects.

I'm confused.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[
With all due respect, I feel this is the right place for such a discussion.

If not here, where?

Maybe a thread other than 'firearms you own and their uses'.

You're asking about Bolt Action/FOW effects for guns in those games, again, the historical game board would be a great place, adding to some Bolt Action threads already there, or the FOW section.

Game effects = game boards...

Probably a good idea, if that's the intent here.

Those games reflect tactical doctrine and the effect of every man in the squad having an automatic weapon, not just a straight up comparison of the squad LMG.

But yes, that's more of a game question.

In my limited experience, the BAR is an awful weapon. It can be fun, but having gotten to shoot them a couple times, I would not want to take one into battle.

Hardy and mostly reliable, but obscenely overweight, pathetic ammunition capacity and volume of fire, almost impossible to use effectively off the shoulder, terrible ergonomics, useless sights, and an infuriating bipod. The bipod is a particular travesty. You really have to fight the gun to get it to do anything almost.

Really, it's a weapon built aloing the same concept of the Chauchaut, and was no less obsolete by the time of WW2. They're cool looking guns, but the BAR was absolutely a low point of US WW2 small arms. The polish WW2 iterations were actually much better, but were still about the last option I'd pick if I had a choice amongst weapons like Brens, Lewis guns, MG34/42's, Zb26, Madses, 1919's, etc.

But the BAR was invented by our lord and savior John Browning, it has to be flawless, right?

/sarcasm

BAR Could shoot faster than 300 rpm but was artificially limited. I saw some accuracy tests and the Bren was more accurate. BAR was showing its age and was really more of a pain in the ass assault rifle.

MG42 was more complex and ate too much ammo. I would put the Bren or the modified 30 cal the US used starting in 1944 higher on the list. Of course the rooskies had a pan fed lmg as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
we should remember the BAR was also 20 years older.

Well, the MG42's high rate of fire was there for a specific tactical usage in German doctrine, primarily that MG's were assigned to every squad (or even 2 to each squad) and the MG was the central core of the unit providing the bulk of the killing capacity and was heavily used in direct aimed fire against individuals, as opposed to say, the US or UK doctrine where that's what riflemen do and the MG's are a platoon or company support weapon providing suppressing and supporting fire and often targeting an area or zone instead of individuals. Within that German doctrine, the idea of the super high rate of fire was to put as many rounds on a target as possible in a very short timespan, to ensure that targets could not avoid hits "hiding" between rounds (as can happen with slower firing MG's, a sweeping burst across a 100m range may land one bullet every 10m with big gaps that an MG42 wont offer) when brought to bear against moving individual targets.

That made sense when everyone was equipped with bolt action rifles or SMG's. Once everyone had higher rate of fire rifles and the world moved to the Assault Rifle, the need for that high RoF diminished and the tactical operation of infantry units changed. For what it was initially developed for, the high RoF made sense.

I feel I do owe some apology for not making my intent clearer.

Obviously, this is not the thread for discussing tactical doctrine between the nations in WW2 and apologies for taking it OT.

I mentioned FOW and Bolt Action to set up the premise of my question about the merits of each weapon.

Military history and fan historical fiction is a hobby of mine, so I drop into this thread occasionally to get insights from you guys, as you may have owned or fired these weapons at some time, and obviously gun ownership and culture is miles apart when you compare the USA and UK.

When it comes to the BAR/Bren/MG34

I was looking for insights into what it's like to fire these weapons, ease of running with them on your back, are they easy to reload, what are the sights like, are they practical in the field, how accurate are they etc etc

The sort of info that Vaktathi and Frazz have provided












Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an example, even to a non-gun person such as myself, if you're lying on the ground shooting a BAR, it must be awkward trying to reload the thing, compared to a Bren, where the magazine goes in the top, as opposed to the BAR where the magazine goes underneath.

And as Frazz mentioned, the Russian light machine gun (DP 1928) with the dinner plate magazine, must have been awkward to reload at the best of times, and that's even before we go onto belt-fed guns like the MG34.

BAR isn't much harder to load in the prone position than any other position. Much like any modern detachable mag-fed rifle, just rotate the gun slightly and switch mags.

Though yes, I imagine a Bren might be easier, but I can't see it being a major difference in combat.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
BAR isn't much harder to load in the prone position than any other position. Much like any modern detachable mag-fed rifle, just rotate the gun slightly and switch mags.

Though yes, I imagine a Bren might be easier, but I can't see it being a major difference in combat.

Have you or anybody else any experience of reloading belt feed guns like the MG34 or doing a barrel change whilst prone? I can't imagine that would be easy either, even on a perfect day at the range or wherever.

And another point that other members might know the answer to: is barrel overheating really a major thing in these above mentioned guns if you fire loads of rounds through them?

I've read one or two personal accounts of British and German troops in Normandy, and it's only briefly touched on, but I imagine it could be a problem, but not a major one. I might be wrong.

Thanks.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
BAR isn't much harder to load in the prone position than any other position. Much like any modern detachable mag-fed rifle, just rotate the gun slightly and switch mags.

Though yes, I imagine a Bren might be easier, but I can't see it being a major difference in combat.

Have you or anybody else any experience of reloading belt feed guns like the MG34 or doing a barrel change whilst prone? I can't imagine that would be easy either, even on a perfect day at the range or wherever.

And another point that other members might know the answer to: is barrel overheating really a major thing in these above mentioned guns if you fire loads of rounds through them?

I've read one or two personal accounts of British and German troops in Normandy, and it's only briefly touched on, but I imagine it could be a problem, but not a major one. I might be wrong.

Thanks.

I was a AG on the M-60 and later the 240b.. also AG for a mg-42 when in Germany. I was issued a mitt for grabbing the M-60 barrel and yes that bastard got hot. Barrel change was quick since we practiced all the time. 240b was better since it had a handle and was really easy to change the barrel. Push a button and slap the handle barrel came right off, insert new barrel and push handle to side and your rocking again. MG-42 gunner pulled a handle and barrel opened to side and you had to grab the hot barrel with a mitt. M-60 bipod legs where attached to the barrel so if not using the tripod the gunner had to lift the gun for the AG to grab the barrel. Running around with a red hot barrel in my hand was a common occurrence when on a mission. If I set the barrel on something dry it usually caught fire from the barrel being so hot. Being the AG was one of the toughest jobs in the light infantry since you carried so much weight in ammo and gear for the gun.

 Chute82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
BAR isn't much harder to load in the prone position than any other position. Much like any modern detachable mag-fed rifle, just rotate the gun slightly and switch mags.

Though yes, I imagine a Bren might be easier, but I can't see it being a major difference in combat.

Have you or anybody else any experience of reloading belt feed guns like the MG34 or doing a barrel change whilst prone? I can't imagine that would be easy either, even on a perfect day at the range or wherever.

And another point that other members might know the answer to: is barrel overheating really a major thing in these above mentioned guns if you fire loads of rounds through them?

I've read one or two personal accounts of British and German troops in Normandy, and it's only briefly touched on, but I imagine it could be a problem, but not a major one. I might be wrong.

Thanks.

I was a AG on the M-60 and later the 240b.. also AG for a mg-42 when in Germany. I was issued a mitt for grabbing the M-60 barrel and yes that bastard got hot. Barrel change was quick since we practiced all the time. 240b was better since it had a handle and was really easy to change the barrel. Push a button and slap the handle barrel came right off, insert new barrel and push handle to side and your rocking again. MG-42 gunner pulled a handle and barrel opened to side and you had to grab the hot barrel with a mitt. M-60 bipod legs where attached to the barrel so if not using the tripod the gunner had to lift the gun for the AG to grab the barrel. Running around with a red hot barrel in my hand was a common occurrence when on a mission. If I set the barrel on something dry it usually caught fire from the barrel being so hot. Being the AG was one of the toughest jobs in the light infantry since you carried so much weight in ammo and gear for the gun.

Interesting info. Thanks. Never knew you had to wear an heat proof glove to change these things.

Presumably, you would have had replacement barrels. Couldn't you have ditched the old barrel for a new one, instead of having to run around with a red hot barrel?

Typically you would carry two barrels and alternate them, using one while letting the other cool.

And yes, they get hot as feth.

Even firing a couple mags rapidly through my semi-auto AR, that barrel will burn you.

One thing that I have heard from people that have actually fired a BAR is that with it's lower rate of fire and weight, it was easier to keep on target if you were shouldering it. Higher rates of fire would make the barrel jump all over the place.

The muzzle doesnt move much on a BAR when shooting, the weight does minimize recoil, but that weight makes it hard to wield from the shoulder and keep on target too.

And yes, guns get very hot, got a nice sore burn on my thumb from accidentally touching the sling loop on my AK74 last time I took it out after putting ~120 rounds through it

 cuda1179 wrote:
One thing that I have heard from people that have actually fired a BAR is that with it's lower rate of fire and weight, it was easier to keep on target if you were shouldering it. Higher rates of fire would make the barrel jump all over the place.

Gotta love that fast/slow fire selector


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

And yes, guns get very hot, got a nice sore burn on my thumb from accidentally touching the sling loop on my AK74 last time I took it out after putting ~120 rounds through it

My wife got a burn on the boob from a .22 case being ejected into her cleavage

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
BAR isn't much harder to load in the prone position than any other position. Much like any modern detachable mag-fed rifle, just rotate the gun slightly and switch mags.

Though yes, I imagine a Bren might be easier, but I can't see it being a major difference in combat.

Have you or anybody else any experience of reloading belt feed guns like the MG34 or doing a barrel change whilst prone? I can't imagine that would be easy either, even on a perfect day at the range or wherever.

And another point that other members might know the answer to: is barrel overheating really a major thing in these above mentioned guns if you fire loads of rounds through them?

I've read one or two personal accounts of British and German troops in Normandy, and it's only briefly touched on, but I imagine it could be a problem, but not a major one. I might be wrong.

Thanks.

I was a AG on the M-60 and later the 240b.. also AG for a mg-42 when in Germany. I was issued a mitt for grabbing the M-60 barrel and yes that bastard got hot. Barrel change was quick since we practiced all the time. 240b was better since it had a handle and was really easy to change the barrel. Push a button and slap the handle barrel came right off, insert new barrel and push handle to side and your rocking again. MG-42 gunner pulled a handle and barrel opened to side and you had to grab the hot barrel with a mitt. M-60 bipod legs where attached to the barrel so if not using the tripod the gunner had to lift the gun for the AG to grab the barrel. Running around with a red hot barrel in my hand was a common occurrence when on a mission. If I set the barrel on something dry it usually caught fire from the barrel being so hot. Being the AG was one of the toughest jobs in the light infantry since you carried so much weight in ammo and gear for the gun.

Interesting info. Thanks. Never knew you had to wear an heat proof glove to change these things.

Presumably, you would have had replacement barrels. Couldn't you have ditched the old barrel for a new one, instead of having to run around with a red hot barrel?

You had a spare barrel bag but it wasn't made for hot barrels would just melt through it. Plus my gunner or squad leader would have killed me if I ditched the barrel, I also signed for that stuff.