Markus Becker Posted January 5 Posted January 5 9 hours ago, rmgill said: That's actually a light machine gun with an incorrect designation.
shep854 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, Olof Larsson said: The interim, low cost rifle of the 1960's, replaced by the interim M16, awaiting SPIW/SALVO/NIBLICK/Future Rifle Program/ACR/LSAT. Thanks, Olof. I couldn't remember that barrage of acronyms... 😛 ---- "That's actually a light machine gun with an incorrect designation."--Markus Becker No, the designation was correct; it was generally considered a pretty poor LMG, but we Yanks didn't have anything better. Edited January 5 by shep854
Markus Becker Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, shep854 said: "That's actually a light machine gun with an incorrect designation."--Markus Becker No, the designation was correct; it was generally considered a pretty poor LMG, but we Yanks didn't have anything better. In WW2 the US version of the BAR had fallen much behind but in WW1 it was one of the best, if not the best LMG. So much that even the French wanted to adopt it after the war.
17thfabn Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, shep854 said: 😛"That's actually a light machine gun with an incorrect designation."--Markus Becker No, the designation was correct; it was generally considered a pretty poor LMG, but we Yanks didn't have anything better. But mid war the U.S. would have the terrific world beating M1919A6
shep854 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 3 hours ago, Markus Becker said: In WW2 the US version of the BAR had fallen much behind but in WW1 it was one of the best, if not the best LMG. So much that even the French wanted to adopt it after the war. Here's where we differ on classification. The BAR was conceived and intended to be deployed as a rifle capable of full-auto fire, not a weapon to be emplaced and served by a crew. Because the US did not have a true light machine gun, we wound up trying to shoehorn the BAR into that role.
shep854 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 3 hours ago, 17thfabn said: But mid war the U.S. would have the terrific world beating M1919A6 Um, yeah...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 5 Posted January 5 7 hours ago, Olof Larsson said: The interim, low cost rifle of the 1960's, replaced by the interim M16, awaiting SPIW/SALVO/NIBLICK/Future Rifle Program/ACR/LSAT. How's that working out?
Markus Becker Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, shep854 said: Because the US did not have a true light machine gun, we wound up trying to shoehorn the BAR into that role. You, Belgium, Poland and a lot of other nations. The BAR might not have been perfect but it was pretty good and that's before we get to the FN D.
bojan Posted January 5 Posted January 5 18 hours ago, 17thfabn said: I'll add another U.S. designed automatic rifle from the mid 1950s. Seems like this style of rifle has held up to the test of time. Should have been more clear - In the US procurement. Only AF got it in the '50s, and as a M1/M2 carbine replacement. Army was firmly in the 7.62x51, wooden stocked, no pistol grip gun camp. 19 hours ago, rmgill said: BAR sucked as both LMG and rifle, because it was designed back when none was certain how those should look and be used (1918). US version sucked most, because it did not get upgrades that FN version did. Point is - something like AK or M16 was inconceivable to the US '50s army small arms procurement, they were either "wonderful tech of furture" SPIW deluded maniacs or "what was good for our heroes in WW2, it will be good enough for another 20 years" M14 geriatrics. There was no middle ground until M16 got adopted practically accidentally.
shep854 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: How's that working out? Not.
bojan Posted January 5 Posted January 5 9 hours ago, Olof Larsson said: The complexity & failings of the HK G11 & SPIW is not a result of a inexperienced R&D department. It's the result of bad requirements specifications from bureaucrats. Issuing specifications is initial part of the design for every machine, because machines are built according to those specifications. Those should have been issued by "gun people", but no, they were issued by the mix of politicians and generals, who, based on specification issued had no clue what guns could and what they could not do.
bojan Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Markus Becker said: You, Belgium, Poland and a lot of other nations. The BAR might not have been perfect but it was pretty good and that's before we get to the FN D. Polish and FN were way better as LMGs than US ones, through still inferior to ZB-26/30 series. 6 hours ago, Markus Becker said: ...but in WW1 it was one of the best, if not the best LMG... It had no bipod in WW1, so it was very iffy as LMG. 6 hours ago, 17thfabn said: But mid war the U.S. would have the terrific world beating M1919A6 Everyone except Germans had a problem that their MGs have became pretty obsolete. MGs were developing rapidly in 1918-1939 and what was cutting edge in early '20s (like M1919 was) was more-less obsolete concept in 1939. That did not make them useless, but writing was on the wall. Nor did US make worst thing ever - Soviets designed DS-39 in 1939. as a HMG to replace Maxim, with no option to use it w/o tripod. Then it was replaced in production with Maxim because it sucked in both production efficiency and reliability. Then those archaics got finally replaced in 1943. by... SG-43, which was again not GPMG. And since SG-43 was so heavy they made another MG for a Plt/Co level, RP-46 (despite designation designed in 1944), by adopting DP to a belt feed.... It took them until PK in 1961. to get GPMG... Ironically, they had own M1919A6 at home, Maxim-Tokarev LMG back in the 1920s and decided it was not a good thing. Brits did not even try to replace Vickers and domestic MG projects went nowhere. French... they used 1914 Hotchkiss. In the world where MG34/MG42 never saw light of day M1919A6 would have been decent plt level MG. But MG34/MG42 existed and have obsoleted all previous LMGs and MGs in the instant.
Markus Becker Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, bojan said: Polish and FN were way better as LMGs than US ones, through still inferior to ZB-26/30 series. Now that's like saying one is a bit slow because one can't run as fast a Usian Bolt. I'm pretty sure the D's kept selling post 1945 Quote It had no bipod in WW1, so it was very iffy as LMG. Lacking accessories, not a fundamental flaw of the core design. Get a sandbag? Quote In the world where MG34/MG42 never saw light of day M1919A6 would have been decent plt level MG. But MG34/MG42 existed and have obsoleted all previous LMGs and MGs in the instant. The A6 was the medium M3 of machine guns. The 'best' that could be provided right away. Edited January 5 by Markus Becker
Olof Larsson Posted January 5 Posted January 5 5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: How's that working out? Well, the M16 has turned out to be a decent interim solution...On a related note. How is that Canberra replacement going? Third time is the charm with the GCAP?
rmgill Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 On 1/5/2025 at 6:25 AM, Markus Becker said: That's actually a light machine gun with an incorrect designation. How dare you counter the spoken word of John Moses Browning!?!?!? 🙂 Being a full power cartridge, it wasn't really controllable, not really a problem of the rifle, but of the size of the cartridge. Hence why we made it a support weapon for firing form positions and less from the hip, though manly men could advance and fire from the hip, not with as much accuracy though. It took a few more decades to find the right balance of firepower and size for the M16 to come along in the US, but the basic layout was found with the STG44.... So arguably for the 40s this is what a good modern rifle should resemble was this...It just needed improvements.
rmgill Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 (edited) 21 hours ago, bojan said: BAR sucked as both LMG and rifle, because it was designed back when none was certain how those should look and be used (1918). US version sucked most, because it did not get upgrades that FN version did. My tongue was planted gently in my cheek.... 🙂 21 hours ago, bojan said: Point is - something like AK or M16 was inconceivable to the US '50s army small arms procurement, they were either "wonderful tech of furture" SPIW deluded maniacs or "what was good for our heroes in WW2, it will be good enough for another 20 years" M14 geriatrics. There was no middle ground until M16 got adopted practically accidentally. People had ideas. STG 44 and SMGs and the later AK was paths. But firearms development slowed after WWII ended in part because there was SO much 30.06 ammo on hand, so a shift to a new cartridge was going to take time. And downsizing from full power .30 caliber cartridges to a kurz rifle cartridge like 7.62x39 or 7.92×33mm was, albeit faster for the USSR than it was for the US. The advent of NATO made for a greater degree of committee interference in what was good ideas. And notably, we do HAVE the M1 carbine. There were some forays into a .22 caliber or .17 calibur bullet for that case in the 5.7mm Johnson. Which is decades before FN's 5.7x28 PDW cartridge came out. Putting the 5.7mm into a smaller package than an M1 carbine would have been interesting. One wonders what could have been done with this line of cartridges if someone had tried expanding it's role after WWII and Korea. I toyed with getting one of those in the 90s as IMI was making new builds. I ended up with a standard .30 carbine myself. It's still working well too. At a recent Oleg Shoot this past December...Oleg was playing with front lighting which is why it looks like it's black powder... Edited January 6 by rmgill
Markus Becker Posted January 6 Posted January 6 2 hours ago, rmgill said: How dare you counter the spoken word of John Moses Browning!?!?!? 🙂 I'm not being heretical by disagreeing with Gun Moses, I'm just disputing the destination the US Army slapped on His design. 😇 WRT walking fire. It seems that was never done outside training and the gun was used as an LMG with no bipod.
rmgill Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 36 minutes ago, Markus Becker said: WRT walking fire. It seems that was never done outside training and the gun was used as an LMG with no bipod. It was suicidal in the face of entrenched German Troops firing from revetments with belt fed MGs. It might have worked better with opponents in the open or in less solid cover.
rmgill Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 Brownells has updated the BRN 180 to a gen 3 model. Non reciprocating charging handle on the left side. Three position gas switch, suppressed, unsuppressed and austere. Sliding ejection port cover. And a latch for the recorder rear to keep the internals constrained when you break shotgun open your upper.
sunday Posted January 10 Posted January 10 16 hours ago, rmgill said: Is that cultural appropriation?
Markus Becker Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Historical appropriation. Same gun culture but different times.
rmgill Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 58 minutes ago, Markus Becker said: Historical appropriation. Same gun culture but different times. There's a lyric from this one of many songs by The Mirror Reveals ( a band from the middle oughts) that I have adored since I first heard the in the 2000s. It speaks of articles found in boxes, put there by someone, slightly out grown, found mostly by offspring who's passions may not have changed. Old traditions and tech....sometimes offspring's passions aren't far from their parents or grandparents.
sunday Posted January 11 Posted January 11 8 hours ago, Markus Becker said: Historical appropriation. Same gun culture but different times. Not many cowboys named Micah, I suppose.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now