If it were possible to replace every GI's Garand with a BAR in WW2, would it have been a practical or feasible idea?
It is heavier, yes, but not too heavy that a single soldier couldn't care and operate it.
If it were possible to replace every GI's Garand with a BAR in WW2, would it have been a practical or feasible idea?
Connor Roberts
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Lucas Taylor
Yes, but it's still too heavy. The Garand should have just been designed to accept BAR magazines.
Kevin Kelly
Wouldn't that reduce soldier ammo capacity tho? Or make them heavier for the same amount of bullets? Stripper clips are light weight and compact.
Jaxon Cooper
Impractical. inaccurate, not to mention the weight.
The ranges that had to be hit with the Garand just couldn't be achieved by the BAR, or it would've been used for that.
Tyler Jackson
It was done but war ended before it got into mass production, though no idea if it was intended to replace Garands or just BARs
Joseph Jones
Garand clips hold 8 rounds, but BAR box magazines hold 20 rounds. The reason why they went with the 8-round clips instead of using BAR magazines was because US Ordinance was so retarded that they thought limiting the capacity of the Garand would force servicemen to be better marksmen.
Joshua Lewis
Basically the precursor to the M14, which was a disaster.
Leo Fisher
How was the M14 a disaster?
Landon Roberts
Christian Turner
>.280 FAL
Juan Baker
Fire Superiority > Marksmanship
Robert Ward
We know that today, but the US Army upper echelons were staffed by literal "muh one shot one kill, muh wood and steel" fudds back then.
Parker Harris
An M1918A2 BAR? No. Something like a Winchester G30 or WAR? Maybe. Personally, I say a Colt R80 Monitor, 13lb 18" barrel version of the BAR with a proper pistol grip and Cutts compensator.
Julian Martin
Easton Myers
>Impractical. inaccurate
Innacurate =/= Impractical
Suppression fire is perhaps the most innacurate type of fire night short of hip fire, but it is extremely practical
Gavin Flores
If it were being done, do it right.
Dominic Bell
>M14 was bad because the M16 was better
shit video/10
Owen Torres
they tried: the magazines couldn't feed fast enough given how fast the M1 cycles. All the prototypes were jammomatics. For whatever reason, the 7.62x51's slightly shorter length made up the difference allowing the M14 to be reliable.
James Perry
Mason Anderson
this...garand should have been box magazine fed like the m14
this sounds like an excuse, we are not talking about magic here, its engineering...design it so it works, change the design of the gas port to slow down the cycle rate....give me a lever long enough and i will move the world
Ian Martinez
>Cutts compensator
I think you just specified that because you can't think of any other compensator from the era. That's the only one you know, so you keep saying it, even when it doesn't make any sense.
Thomas Anderson
handheld full auto .308
Noah Ramirez
The BAR didnt suck because it wasnt used enough. The BAR sucked because it fucking sucked.
Jaxon Diaz
they are made with Cutts comps though
Ryder White
Ha hah, no. The BAR was shit.
This guy doesn't know jack shit, why do people keep posting his video? It's basically a bunch of bitching about the Ordinance dipshits doing their standard fuckery and of course-
>BAR mags are shit
>SLAP MAGS ON EM-ONE GOOD IDEAUH
>MUH .280 REEEEEEEE
>MUH FAL REEEEEEEE
>MUH EM-SIXTEEN REEEEEEEEE
>implying that if the US starting making the FAL we wouldn't have teething issues on that too
Anyway, the M1 made absolute sense at the the time. Clips were economical, logistically easy, and didn't shit the bed on the massive length that is the 30-06 cartridge. The BAR was a relic that was almost tortured by the 'upgrades' it received. It should have been left in WWI where it belonged.
Jordan Jackson
Pretend the M1 and M2 carbines exist before WW2. Would they be practical hypothetical replacements for the Garand, or is .30 Carbine not powerful enough?
Samuel King
Well I mean it would work, but why? The Garand is totally fine and if we were going to make a light rifle pre-WWII with knowledge we have today it would probably end up looking a lot more like the Mini 14.
Matthew Hall
Could probably eliminate the need of the Thompson, could sort of function as a proto-assault rifle
Carter Ward
I doubt it would totally manage to replace submachine guns considering the carbine had the same problem as the M14 when it comes to full auto, being totally uncontrollable. As for being a proto-assault rifle it kind of was in Korea and Vietnam anyway. You see it used that way by ARVN who weren't issued M16s yet.
Gabriel Ortiz
I wouldn't say that Chris Bartocci doesn't know anything. He's a highly experienced professional who spent years in the arms industry.
I think it's fair to say he reached some debatable conclusions (which he asserts as stone cold fact) and combined with his credibility it's a big addition to the M14 hate bandwagon.
It was a flawed program in many ways, but it's not 100% clear that .280 would have been better and it's definitely not clear that the US army would have been happier with the FAL rather than the M14 given what they wanted out of it. Most of the M14's problems in comparison to the AR stem from it being a battle rifle, that's a matter of doctrine rather than design.
Kayden Nguyen
>>it's definitely not clear that the US army would have been happier with the FAL rather than the M14
That is the "made in America" meme for you. Supply the second best weapons system because it support American industry,