A rifle question

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi:

While reading up on military rifles, I came across the assertation that bolt action rifles are inherently more accurate than self loading rifles, at least straight off the factory floor. Apparently it has something to do with the way an semi-auto rifle head spaces the cartridge. I know that several of our forum members have shooting experience and wanted to get their thoughts on this. Are bolt action rifles more accurate? From the large number of bolt action sniper rifles, one would believe this to be true. Thoughts?

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

While reading up on military rifles, I came across the assertation that bolt action rifles are inherently more accurate than self loading rifles, at least straight off the factory floor. Apparently it has something to do with the way an semi-auto rifle head spaces the cartridge. I know that several of our forum members have shooting experience and wanted to get their thoughts on this. Are bolt action rifles more accurate? From the large number of bolt action sniper rifles, one would believe this to be true. Thoughts?

Well, I am not the expert that many on the forum appear to be. IMHO, rifle accuracy, as with any weapon, has many factors that contribute to it.

Cartridge design - aerodynamics of the bullet.

powder type

Barrel design

Recoil mechanism design - Closed or open bolt - With bolt action rifle, the bolt is closed, and there is no change in the center of gravity as the bolt moves forward, as on many semi and full auto weapons. Straight-line design or angled

Intangibles such as weather conditions, human errors, sight alignment, wear, quality of machining.

The others with more experience can elaborate and add many more.

Just my uneducated opinion, of course.

[keschofield]

Ed,

I've heard that old story too. Certainly during the changeover from the Springfield '03 to the M-1, a lot of "old timers" were reputed to have questioned the accuracy of the M-1.

However, I am not aware of any studies that would make such a blanket statement. I do know that several of the bolt actions that I had in my collection were very crude pieces of work that wouldn't have competed with a dart gun in accuracy. :rolleyes:

IMHO, as Dennis pointed out, it comes down to the specific shooter and the specific rifle.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

I've heard that old story too. Certainly during the changeover from the Springfield '03 to the M-1, a lot of "old timers" were reputed to have questioned the accuracy of the M-1.

However, I am not aware of any studies that would make such a blanket statement. I do know that several of the bolt actions that I had in my collection were very crude pieces of work that wouldn't have competed with a dart gun in accuracy. :rolleyes:

IMHO, as Dennis pointed out, it comes down to the specific shooter and the specific rifle.

Kurt:

I believe I may have read it in a book on Snipers. I think one of the things that caused this perception is that self loading rifles perhaps were not as tight in tolerances due to the way they were manufactured. The US kept the Springfield around because it was more accurate for sniping when compared to the M1, but the M1 was and still is a good shooting rifle. Interesting enough, John Weeks, a British small arms expert stated that the Lee Enfield was not a very accurate gun, but don't mention that to a British vet LOL! In that instance it was more due to the .303 cartridge than the rifle. I do know that the US wasn't very satisfied with the sniping performance of the M1, but they did work to improve this. Actually the sniping mission is so different from the standard infantryman's mission, that you really need a specialized weapon for it. The military does have a supply of highly modified M-14s that are used in the designated marksman role so semi-autos can't be inherently bad. But for serious sniping they still use bolt action rifles. There is even a bolt action version of the Barret light .50 caliber sniper rifle.

[old_pop2000]

Kurt:

I believe I may have read it in a book on Snipers. I think one of the things that caused this perception is that self loading rifles perhaps were not as tight in tolerances due to the way they were manufactured. The US kept the Springfield around because it was more accurate for sniping when compared to the M1, but the M1 was and still is a good shooting rifle. Interesting enough, John Weeks, a British small arms expert stated that the Lee Enfield was not a very accurate gun, but don't mention that to a British vet LOL! In that instance it was more due to the .303 cartridge than the rifle. I do know that the US wasn't very satisfied with the sniping performance of the M1, but they did work to improve this. Actually the sniping mission is so different from the standard infantryman's mission, that you really need a specialized weapon for it. The military does have a supply of highly modified M-14s that are used in the designated marksman role so semi-autos can't be inherently bad. But for serious sniping they still use bolt action rifles. There is even a bolt action version of the Barret light .50 caliber sniper rifle.

There are other factors for snipers. One very important one is simplicity of operation and ease of maintanance. A sniper is alone and might not be in a position where he can repair or clean his weapon. A bolt action rifle is a strong action and usually can be kept clean with a cover or cloth over the barrel and the action. Autoloaders tend to get dirty and need more cleaning. Most autoloaders use shorter cartridges, which gives the shooter less range, a sniper want max range to kill from a distance. The best weapon is the bolt action rife.

[Mart]

I'm afraid I don't like guns much, so I can't talk about military weapons.

My brother-in-law was an armourer all his career, and all he'll ever say is never rely on an SA-80!

But on the subject, perhaps a clue may come from the type of rifles used in, say, the Olympics, during rifle marksmanship competitions. I know they are highly specialized rifles, but as far as I know, they are all bolt-action/single-shot weapons.

Is this helpful?

Cheers

Martin

[Mart]

Hi Fellas

I seem to have somehow killed this thread off. I don't know why, but I seem to have managed similar feats on other threads in the past. So if people want to carry it on, I'll stop contributing to this thread, so that people can get back to discussing a topic of interest.

I hope that makes sense

Martin :)

[keschofield]

Hi Fellas

I seem to have somehow killed this thread off. I don't know why, but I seem to have managed similar feats on other threads in the past. So if people want to carry it on, I'll stop contributing to this thread, so that people can get back to discussing a topic of interest.

I hope that makes sense

Martin :)

Martin,

I don't think you did anything wrong. I always enjoy your posts. Sometimes these threads just die a natural death. Don't worry about it and please keep posting.

Kurt

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Fellas

I seem to have somehow killed this thread off. I don't know why, but I seem to have managed similar feats on other threads in the past. So if people want to carry it on, I'll stop contributing to this thread, so that people can get back to discussing a topic of interest.

I hope that makes sense

Martin :)

Martin:

As Kyle mentioned, sometimes enough info has come out that there is no real need to keep posting. Sometimes people discover an old thread and comment on it later on. Regarding the SA-80, I have read that it had so many problems that the German firm of H & K were given a contract to refurbish all the rifles with better parts. I don't know if that has cured its problems or not. I'll bet there are British soldiers that wish they still had their old reliable Self Loading Rifles (FNs).

[Smiffy]

Kurt:

I believe I may have read it in a book on Snipers. I think one of the things that caused this perception is that self loading rifles perhaps were not as tight in tolerances due to the way they were manufactured. The US kept the Springfield around because it was more accurate for sniping when compared to the M1, but the M1 was and still is a good shooting rifle. Interesting enough, John Weeks, a British small arms expert stated that the Lee Enfield was not a very accurate gun, but don't mention that to a British vet LOL! In that instance it was more due to the .303 cartridge than the rifle. I do know that the US wasn't very satisfied with the sniping performance of the M1, but they did work to improve this. Actually the sniping mission is so different from the standard infantryman's mission, that you really need a specialized weapon for it. The military does have a supply of highly modified M-14s that are used in the designated marksman role so semi-autos can't be inherently bad. But for serious sniping they still use bolt action rifles. There is even a bolt action version of the Barret light .50 caliber sniper rifle.

My old granddad, ex RSM, British Army 1900-1912 & 1914-1920, East Yorkshire Regiment and Dublin Fusiliers, said that in many ways the Mauser was superior to the Lee-Enfield. It was more accurate, it was better balanced, it had a better finish and in a shooting competition he would have chosen it in preference to the standard Lee-Enfield. However on a battlefield the Lee-Enfield came into its own, it wasn't prone to jamming and, above all, a trained man could fire 20 aimed rounds per minute. If things were really getting nasty they were trained to fire at 30 rounds per minute "into the brown".

The British sniper rifle of both world wars was a factory standard Lee-Enfield taken apart and rebuilt by hand to much finer tolerances, usually by the Parker-Hale Company of Birmingham. During my own time in the service (1970s and 1980s), the Parker-Hale was still in use but with the NATO 7.62 round.

[Ed Rotondaro]

My old granddad, ex RSM, British Army 1900-1912 & 1914-1920, East Yorkshire Regiment and Dublin Fusiliers, said that in many ways the Mauser was superior to the Lee-Enfield. It was more accurate, it was better balanced, it had a better finish and in a shooting competition he would have chosen it in preference to the standard Lee-Enfield. However on a battlefield the Lee-Enfield came into its own, it wasn't prone to jamming and, above all, a trained man could fire 20 aimed rounds per minute. If things were really getting nasty they were trained to fire at 30 rounds per minute "into the brown".

The British sniper rifle of both world wars was a factory standard Lee-Enfield taken apart and rebuilt by hand to much finer tolerances, usually by the Parker-Hale Company of Birmingham. During my own time in the service (1970s and 1980s), the Parker-Hale was still in use but with the NATO 7.62 round.

Smiffy:

Which is why I don't understand why other nations didn't opt for a larger fixed magazine in their bolt action rifles. The British soldier certainly had a force multiplier in the rate of fire he could put.

[Smiffy]

Smiffy:

Which is why I don't understand why other nations didn't opt for a larger fixed magazine in their bolt action rifles. The British soldier certainly had a force multiplier in the rate of fire he could put.

At the beginning of WW1, German Intelligence informed field commanders that British infantry were equipped with two machine guns per battalion. After their first action against the British at the Battle of Mons they re-estimated at six MGs per battalion. Actually the first estimate was correct.

I don't think that any other army saw rate fire as being particularly important. For the British it had been a vital factor in many small colonial actions, "Zulus! Thousands of 'em!":eek:

[keschofield]

...I don't think that any other army saw rate fire as being particularly important. For the British it had been a vital factor in many small colonial actions, "Zulus! Thousands of 'em!":eek:

Nothing ever illustrated the effectiveness of the above statement so much as the "fire by ranks" scenes in Zulu! I still get chills watching the discipline, precision, and awful beauty of those scenes. Anybody who charges into that is either terminally brave or terminally crazy.:eek:

[old_pop2000]

Smiffy:

Which is why I don't understand why other nations didn't opt for a larger fixed magazine in their bolt action rifles. The British soldier certainly had a force multiplier in the rate of fire he could put.

There is a simple explanation for why other nations did not opt for larger magazines. Their infantry doctrine and small unit tactics were different than the British. Example is the German K98 Mauser with a 5 round magazine. On first glance, it would seem that this would reduce the firepower of the squad. But the German squad's firepower was not based on the rifle, it was based on the squad machine gun. Starting in WWI, the Gruppe or section with a light machine gun and riflemen was a change from all riflemen equipped with a like weapon. Ludendorff commented that the Light Machine gun was the dominant weapon with the riflemen in support. Each rifleman carried ammunition belts for the machine gun. This was the basic unit for the sturm units in 1917.

On the other side of this, is the British emphasis on aimed fire with the rifle being the dominant weapon in the squad.

It seems logical, that if the rifle is the dominant weapon, more rounds per load would be important, whereas with the German Sturm system, the five round magazine is adequate for most purposes since the rifleman is a support function. The less ammunition he carries, the more machine gun ammunition he can carry. With the 5 Sturm companies, 2 machine gun companies and one flamethrower unit, and one trench mortor company; the Germans developed sturm battalions with an emphasis on firepower.

[fred8615]

One of the things I've heard that supposedly made the M1 superior to a bolt action rifle was that because the hands never had to leave the rifle, the shooter could reacquire his target a bit faster after shooting recoil than a man who also had to work the bolt. While that doesn't address the question of actual accuracy, like the British example, it does help to put more lead in the area faster.

[Ed Rotondaro]

There is a simple explanation for why other nations did not opt for larger magazines. Their infantry doctrine and small unit tactics were different than the British. Example is the German K98 Mauser with a 5 round magazine. On first glance, it would seem that this would reduce the firepower of the squad. But the German squad's firepower was not based on the rifle, it was based on the squad machine gun. Starting in WWI, the Gruppe or section with a light machine gun and riflemen was a change from all riflemen equipped with a like weapon. Ludendorff commented that the Light Machine gun was the dominant weapon with the riflemen in support. Each rifleman carried ammunition belts for the machine gun. This was the basic unit for the sturm units in 1917.

On the other side of this, is the British emphasis on aimed fire with the rifle being the dominant weapon in the squad.

It seems logical, that if the rifle is the dominant weapon, more rounds per load would be important, whereas with the German Sturm system, the five round magazine is adequate for most purposes since the rifleman is a support function. The less ammunition he carries, the more machine gun ammunition he can carry. With the 5 Sturm companies, 2 machine gun companies and one flamethrower unit, and one trench mortor company; the Germans developed sturm battalions with an emphasis on firepower.

Dennis:

That explains the German decision, but not the US or France or Russia. Also, the Sturm battalions didn't exist pre-WWI, they first started coming into existence in 1915 and their tactics were still evolving thru 1917. They were a reaction to the stalemate of trench warfare, just as the tank was the British reaction.

[Mart]

This is by way of a shaggy dog story but I hope interesting. Until I was medically retired, I worked most of my life as a Probation Officer. Unlike medicine, or social work, there are somethings I can share as they occurred in court, and hence were, technically at least, in the public domain. About 15 years ago, a man was charged with possession of a collection of illegal firearms. You'll all know that UK gun controls are very strict, but on this occasion the police,and eventually the court, did accept that they were a "collection", albeit an unregistered one, and obtained illegally. Some of the guns were real ancient pieces, over the last 150 years, and all the guns were confiscated, and given to the county's police museum.

However, before the case ended (with a massive fine, as I recall), the chairman of the magistrates, who was a senior retired Guards officer, just couldn't resist finding an excuse to get his hands on one of the pieces, and asked to see it as evidence. There then followed this bizarre dialogue between the magistrate, and the defendant, about this weapon, which had to be dressed up as "gathering information" but was really this ex-guardsman absolutely dying to know more about it. It all got very technical, and the funny part was that it all had to seem above board. The rifle in question was an old Mauser rifle, from the beginning of the 20th century, which the magistrate knew of, but had never seen. It was an issue to do with its loading system which was, apparently, completely unique.

I could practically see the tears in the magistrate's eyes as he had to hand the piece back to the prosecution. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't pay a visit to the police museum a ta later date, to give it a more thorough "inspection".

It was the funniest thing I'd seen, and quite touching. One man an illicit collector. the other a man harking back to his past. A nice old codger. "Tough but fair" as they say, and totally committed to the Probation Service, and to the welfare of victims, and, often, to the troubles of the perpetrators. Following retirement, he became an official "Prison Visitor" and still visits that prison regularly, where he has good relations with both staff and inmates. It's not often that the average inmate gets to spent time to chat with a "Lord", which he is.

As for the rifle, I only wish I could tell you what, exactly, it was, but all I know is that it pretty special.

Martin

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

That explains the German decision, but not the US or France or Russia. Also, the Sturm battalions didn't exist pre-WWI, they first started coming into existence in 1915 and their tactics were still evolving thru 1917. They were a reaction to the stalemate of trench warfare, just as the tank was the British reaction.
The US designs were based on the Mauser system, which used a five round magazine. This holds for the 1917 Eddystone or Enfield, it was also of the Mauser design using the 5 round clip. The British found themselves short of rifles, so they contracted to the US at the Eddystone arsenal, to build Lee SMLE. When the US entered the war, it modified the design to use Springfield stripper clips and ammunition, so it adopted the 5 round clip.

Sometimes, it's just expediency that causes another nation to use a weapon. After WWI, when work began on the M1 Garand, the US began to adopt the German style of Sturm organization with an emphasis on the squad light machine gun, which in our case was the .30 cal Browning Automatic Rifle.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The US designs were based on the Mauser system, which used a five round magazine. This holds for the 1917 Eddystone or Enfield, it was also of the Mauser design using the 5 round clip. The British found themselves short of rifles, so they contracted to the US at the Eddystone arsenal, to build Lee SMLE. When the US entered the war, it modified the design to use Springfield stripper clips and ammunition, so it adopted the 5 round clip.

Sometimes, it's just expediency that causes another nation to use a weapon. After WWI, when work began on the M1 Garand, the US began to adopt the German style of Sturm organization with an emphasis on the squad light machine gun, which in our case was the .30 cal Browning Automatic Rifle.

Dennis:

That jogs my memory know that you mention the US using the Mauser design. In fact they blatantly copied it without obtaining a license and eventually ended up paying an undisclosed penalty for copyright violations.

Regarding the BAR, while it was an excellent and effective weapon, it never really could fufill the role of a light machine gun along the lines of the German MG 42 or the British Bren gun. Indeed the US Army tried to produce a copy of the German weapon, but due to drafting problems converting metric to inches, the test weapon malfunctioned and the project was abandoned even thouugh they had a captured example to work from.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

That jogs my memory know that you mention the US using the Mauser design. In fact they blatantly copied it without obtaining a license and eventually ended up paying an undisclosed penalty for copyright violations.

Regarding the BAR, while it was an excellent and effective weapon, it never really could fufill the role of a light machine gun along the lines of the German MG 42 or the British Bren gun. Indeed the US Army tried to produce a copy of the German weapon, but due to drafting problems converting metric to inches, the test weapon malfunctioned and the project was abandoned even thouugh they had a captured example to work from.
The US M60 machine gun uses the locking arrangements of the FG-42 German paratrooper weapon, and the feed and belt system of the MG-42. It is very similar to the MG-42. Mike may have much more detailed operational and functional information that I do.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The US M60 machine gun uses the locking arrangements of the FG-42 German paratrooper weapon, and the feed and belt system of the MG-42. It is very similar to the MG-42. Mike may have much more detailed operational and functional information that I do.

Dennis:

Yes, and it has had until very recently a history of malfunctions. It reached the point were the US Army adopted the FN machine gun.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

That jogs my memory know that you mention the US using the Mauser design. In fact they blatantly copied it without obtaining a license and eventually ended up paying an undisclosed penalty for copyright violations.

Regarding the BAR, while it was an excellent and effective weapon, it never really could fufill the role of a light machine gun along the lines of the German MG 42 or the British Bren gun. Indeed the US Army tried to produce a copy of the German weapon, but due to drafting problems converting metric to inches, the test weapon malfunctioned and the project was abandoned even thouugh they had a captured example to work from.

Hi Guys,

That is an interesting discussion. The BAR certainly lacks the rate of fire and ability to fire at a sustained rate, but it is certainly more mobile and harder to counter act. I wouldn't even consider them i the same class of weapon. An MG42 is a weapons sytem and requires a crew of 3 to 4 to carry the ancillary equipmnet of tripods, spare barrels and ammunition it could consume. The gun would be used as a base of fire while the rest of the squad maneuvered against the objective. In the American squad, you had two seperate fire teams either of which could support or maneuver under covering fire from the BAR. A BAR man could carry 10 mags or 200 rounds and was supposed to have an asst gunner with another 200 rounds, but man power strapped squads may not have had the assistants. Also a BAR gunner was easier to conceal and hard to counterfire against than a machine gun. With M-1 Garands, I doubt if an American squad was at that much of a fire power deficit against it's German counterparts. The MG42 fired at a prodigious rate and keeping it supplied with ammunition and spare barrels could be difficult.

To me, the BREN gun was the worst of both worlds........not much lighter than an MG42, but limited in firepower by it's magazine feed system.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

Yes, and it has had until very recently a history of malfunctions. It reached the point were the US Army adopted the FN machine gun.

Hi Guys,

I was just reading last night about the M60s mixed use of German weapons technology. I ran an M60 machine gun range for a year at Ft Knox and found it to be a robust and reliable weapon. What was dissapointing was to examine the target silhouettes and see how few holes were in them at the end of the day after the firing of thousands of rounds. : ) The knocks on the M60 by writers comparing them against it's counterparts was primarily it's weight. The barrel assembly included with the bipod and gas tube for the recoil system for the gun, so each spare barrel had to have the same items. So the spare barrel assembly was several pounds heavier than necessary.

The change to MAG was generated by the need for a reliable coax machine gun for tanks. The Ordnance designed M73 series of guns replaced the Browning design and was never a success. It sufffered a serious tendency to split cartridge cases leaving them stuck in the chamber requiring manual extraction or jam. We always suspected some sort of slight dimensional error in it's design that caused the problem. The gun had been over designed to be extremely compact with a very short reciever. You would often carry one or two extra recievers with you on range qualification so your loader could get your coax working again quickly and was replaced in the M1 with FN MAG machine gun and I believe it was subsequently adopted for ground use to replace the aging M60 guns.

I suppose I'm no different than many others with fond recollections about the weapons they had that worked so take my opinion for what it's worth. You could have a number of malfunctions with a weapon, the ruptured cartridge case being the worst. In that case, the cartridge splits open in teh chamber when fired and becomes jammed in the chamber requiring weapon diassembly and manual extraction of the case....no fun under fire. With a machine gun, you can generally change barrels and continue to fire.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Guys,

I was just reading last night about the M60s mixed use of German weapons technology. I ran an M60 machine gun range for a year at Ft Knox and found it to be a robust and reliable weapon. What was dissapointing was to examine the target silhouettes and see how few holes were in them at the end of the day after the firing of thousands of rounds. : ) The knocks on the M60 by writers comparing them against it's counterparts was primarily it's weight. The barrel assembly included with the bipod and gas tube for the recoil system for the gun, so each spare barrel had to have the same items. So the spare barrel assembly was several pounds heavier than necessary.

The change to MAG was generated by the need for a reliable coax machine gun for tanks. The Ordnance designed M73 series of guns replaced the Browning design and was never a success. It sufffered a serious tendency to split cartridge cases leaving them stuck in the chamber requiring manual extraction or jam. We always suspected some sort of slight dimensional error in it's design that caused the problem. The gun had been over designed to be extremely compact with a very short reciever. You would often carry one or two extra recievers with you on range qualification so your loader could get your coax working again quickly and was replaced in the M1 with FN MAG machine gun and I believe it was subsequently adopted for ground use to replace the aging M60 guns.

I suppose I'm no different than many others with fond recollections about the weapons they had that worked so take my opinion for what it's worth. You could have a number of malfunctions with a weapon, the ruptured cartridge case being the worst. In that case, the cartridge splits open in teh chamber when fired and becomes jammed in the chamber requiring weapon diassembly and manual extraction of the case....no fun under fire. With a machine gun, you can generally change barrels and continue to fire.
The latest version of the M60 is the E4, but I am not certain it is still in use. The M249 is the US version of the FN Minimi. The M249 uses a dual feed system using the standard M885 5.56 cal round for personnel. I am not certain, but I believe the rate of fire changes with the system.

You keep providing with your information, ace. Books only take us so far.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The latest version of the M60 is the E4, but I am not certain it is still in use. The M249 is the US version of the FN Minimi. The M249 uses a dual feed system using the standard M885 5.56 cal round for personnel. I am not certain, but I believe the rate of fire changes with the system.

You keep providing with your information, ace. Books only take us so far.

Dennis:

I believe the USMC and the SEALS use the E4.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Guys,

I was just reading last night about the M60s mixed use of German weapons technology. I ran an M60 machine gun range for a year at Ft Knox and found it to be a robust and reliable weapon. What was dissapointing was to examine the target silhouettes and see how few holes were in them at the end of the day after the firing of thousands of rounds. : ) The knocks on the M60 by writers comparing them against it's counterparts was primarily it's weight. The barrel assembly included with the bipod and gas tube for the recoil system for the gun, so each spare barrel had to have the same items. So the spare barrel assembly was several pounds heavier than necessary.

The change to MAG was generated by the need for a reliable coax machine gun for tanks. The Ordnance designed M73 series of guns replaced the Browning design and was never a success. It sufffered a serious tendency to split cartridge cases leaving them stuck in the chamber requiring manual extraction or jam. We always suspected some sort of slight dimensional error in it's design that caused the problem. The gun had been over designed to be extremely compact with a very short reciever. You would often carry one or two extra recievers with you on range qualification so your loader could get your coax working again quickly and was replaced in the M1 with FN MAG machine gun and I believe it was subsequently adopted for ground use to replace the aging M60 guns.

I suppose I'm no different than many others with fond recollections about the weapons they had that worked so take my opinion for what it's worth. You could have a number of malfunctions with a weapon, the ruptured cartridge case being the worst. In that case, the cartridge splits open in teh chamber when fired and becomes jammed in the chamber requiring weapon diassembly and manual extraction of the case....no fun under fire. With a machine gun, you can generally change barrels and continue to fire.

Mike:

Thanks for the insights on the M60. I believe it acquired its bad rep in 'Nam and that could have been for a variety of reasons including the environment and the motivation of draftee soldiers to keep their weapon clean and lubricated. I do know that several product improvements were made over the years, so the gun probably was no worse than most GPMGs. I remember reading a test of the most current H&K GPMG in (gasp Ed reads this?) Solder of Fortune magazine. The writer has years of experience with automatic weapons and he couldn't keep the gun from jamming. Guns are like women. They all have different personalities and they bear close watching.;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Guys,

That is an interesting discussion. The BAR certainly lacks the rate of fire and ability to fire at a sustained rate, but it is certainly more mobile and harder to counter act. I wouldn't even consider them i the same class of weapon. An MG42 is a weapons sytem and requires a crew of 3 to 4 to carry the ancillary equipmnet of tripods, spare barrels and ammunition it could consume. The gun would be used as a base of fire while the rest of the squad maneuvered against the objective. In the American squad, you had two seperate fire teams either of which could support or maneuver under covering fire from the BAR. A BAR man could carry 10 mags or 200 rounds and was supposed to have an asst gunner with another 200 rounds, but man power strapped squads may not have had the assistants. Also a BAR gunner was easier to conceal and hard to counterfire against than a machine gun. With M-1 Garands, I doubt if an American squad was at that much of a fire power deficit against it's German counterparts. The MG42 fired at a prodigious rate and keeping it supplied with ammunition and spare barrels could be difficult.

To me, the BREN gun was the worst of both worlds........not much lighter than an MG42, but limited in firepower by it's magazine feed system.


Hi Mike:

I generally agree here, especially about the BAR. It really was the forerunner of the squad automatic weapon in terms of portability and firepower.

I'm not so much in agreement on the BREN. I think that while somewhat limited in firepower due to the magazine feed, it also had several strengths. Since it fired at a lower rate, it was less prone to barrel overheating. This was aided by the need to swap out magazines. It was far more portable than the MG 42 and only needed a crew of two whereas the minimum for the MG 42 was three and the preferred crew was six! There was a 100 round drum magazine available for the BREN, but I believe it was only used in the anti-aircraft role. A disadvantage that I found was that the top mounted magazine vibrated and could make the weapon more visible (although I would image tracers would have the same effect!).

The fact that the BREN soldiered on up into the first Gulf war speaks volumes for its reliability and effectiveness at a time when the MAG was already in British service. Once it was re-chambered for 7.62 NATO and could then use a straight feed magazine, it performance was enhanced. Some British officers feel it was the best light MG of all time, but I think that's an example of what you have already referenced as nostaglia for a weapon that worked well. Try telling some old marine who used a BAR that it really wasn't a good weapon and you risk bodily harm LOL!

One wonders if the US Army had a BREN chambered in .30-06 whether it would have supplanted the BAR?

[john964]

Dennis:

I believe the USMC and the SEALS use the E4.
Ed, The SEAL's use the M249 SAW. The basic SEAL 5 man fire team is equiped with 2 M249, 2 M4/M203 and 1 M4.

[old_pop2000]

Ed, The SEAL's use the M249 SAW. The basic SEAL 5 man fire team is equiped with 2 M249, 2 M4/M203 and 1 M4.
That's what I thought. My son in law was a SAW gunner when he was in the Marines. I am not certain what he is carrying in the Army now.

[Smiffy]

Hi Mike:

I generally agree here, especially about the BAR. It really was the forerunner of the squad automatic weapon in terms of portability and firepower.

I'm not so much in agreement on the BREN. I think that while somewhat limited in firepower due to the magazine feed, it also had several strengths. Since it fired at a lower rate, it was less prone to barrel overheating. This was aided by the need to swap out magazines. It was far more portable than the MG 42 and only needed a crew of two whereas the minimum for the MG 42 was three and the preferred crew was six! There was a 100 round drum magazine available for the BREN, but I believe it was only used in the anti-aircraft role. A disadvantage that I found was that the top mounted magazine vibrated and could make the weapon more visible (although I would image tracers would have the same effect!).

The fact that the BREN soldiered on up into the first Gulf war speaks volumes for its reliability and effectiveness at a time when the MAG was already in British service. Once it was re-chambered for 7.62 NATO and could then use a straight feed magazine, it performance was enhanced. Some British officers feel it was the best light MG of all time, but I think that's an example of what you have already referenced as nostaglia for a weapon that worked well. Try telling some old marine who used a BAR that it really wasn't a good weapon and you risk bodily harm LOL!

One wonders if the US Army had a BREN chambered in .30-06 whether it would have supplanted the BAR?

I have used both the Number 3 BREN with the .303 cartridge and the Number 4 with the 7.62 NATO round. They were heavy but very reliable, jams were few and far between and easily cleared, especially with the straight mag on the No.4, the No.3 was okay as long as you only loaded the mag with 26 or 27 rounds. The BREN strips down very easily and is easy to keep clean. Although usually assigned to a two man team it was easily operated by one man, except for barrel changing.

The most frequent criticism that I heard of the weapon was that it was too accurate and therefore the effective beaten zone was too small.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Mike:

I generally agree here, especially about the BAR. It really was the forerunner of the squad automatic weapon in terms of portability and firepower.

I'm not so much in agreement on the BREN. I think that while somewhat limited in firepower due to the magazine feed, it also had several strengths. Since it fired at a lower rate, it was less prone to barrel overheating. This was aided by the need to swap out magazines. It was far more portable than the MG 42 and only needed a crew of two whereas the minimum for the MG 42 was three and the preferred crew was six! There was a 100 round drum magazine available for the BREN, but I believe it was only used in the anti-aircraft role. A disadvantage that I found was that the top mounted magazine vibrated and could make the weapon more visible (although I would image tracers would have the same effect!).

The fact that the BREN soldiered on up into the first Gulf war speaks volumes for its reliability and effectiveness at a time when the MAG was already in British service. Once it was re-chambered for 7.62 NATO and could then use a straight feed magazine, it performance was enhanced. Some British officers feel it was the best light MG of all time, but I think that's an example of what you have already referenced as nostaglia for a weapon that worked well. Try telling some old marine who used a BAR that it really wasn't a good weapon and you risk bodily harm LOL!

One wonders if the US Army had a BREN chambered in .30-06 whether it would have supplanted the BAR?

Hi Ed,

My comment about the BREN was that it fell between the BAR and MG42. Only slighter lighter than an MG42, it offered little more in the way of fire power than the much lighter BAR. Adopted from the CZECH ZB 26 it is still an effective and popular weapon. Some times the real world qualities of reliablility and simplicity in operation and maintenance are more tangible to soldires than paper tradeoffs.

The BREN certainly might have been a better choice than the .30 cal that US units carried on with into the 50s. The MG42 was and is still a world beater in the form of the slower firing MG1 and you can see the US interest in making it's own version. I too have read the story about cloning it and that miscalculations in metric versus english dimensions doomed it.

I found the M60 to be an exceptionally reliable weapon even when thousnds of rounds were fired through it daily. The stellite lined bore helped considerably with keeping cartridge cases from sticking in the chamber. Having the bolt tear the base of the cartride case off on extraction was no fun either, a fault I never saw in my experience with the M60.

Air cooled machine guns require the barrel to be changed every 300-500 rounds on sustained firing. The heat causes the barrel to expand and theland no longer contact the bullet as it flies down the barrel. One of the advantages of teh newer guns were rapid barrle changes. In the Browning based guns, .30 and .50 cal, once teh barrle was chaned, teh headspace and timing had to be manually adjusted before you could fire again. Newer guns like the BREN, MG42, M60 and most others the barrel simly was latched into place with no adjustments required.

[old_pop2000]

YouTube video of a BREN gun firing. Very cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9JP_DHVKM

[old_pop2000]

A page of videos on the MG-42


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=MG-42&sitesearch=

[Mike Malanaphy]

A page of videos on the MG-42


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=MG-42&sitesearch=

Thanks Dennis,

Nothing sounds like an MG42! Those rookies neeed to put their left hand over the feedtray cover to hold teh gun steady though there seems much less recoil motion than with an M60. Even with the bipod on smooth wood. Nice shooting weapon.

[Ed Rotondaro]

YouTube video of a BREN gun firing. Very cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9JP_DHVKM

Dennis:

Interesting. I like the head tap to let the gunner know he's good to go. Less recoil than I would have expected. But I can see Mike's point about gaps in firepower. I wonder how the BREN would have functioned as a belt fed weapon? Thanks for the link. You have too much time on your hands LOL!

[Ed Rotondaro]

A page of videos on the MG-42


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=MG-42&sitesearch=

Dennis:

Damn, that is one fast firing MG! You can see that accuracy was not its forte though. The beaten zone must have been nasty. I want one.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Interesting. I like the head tap to let the gunner know he's good to go. Less recoil than I would have expected. But I can see Mike's point about gaps in firepower. I wonder how the BREN would have functioned as a belt fed weapon? Thanks for the link. You have too much time on your hands LOL!
How true, how true!!! By the way, I've been getting a box of wine from a winery in the Temucula Valley of California. That area is about 60 minutes north on Hwy 15. We belong to their wine club. The name of the winery is Leonesse. We finished a Meritage recently. This is a wine that is used in blending. Here's the link. We visited them a few months ago.

http://www.leonessecellars.com/home.html

There is a great place to stay in the valley, its like a bed & breakfast. A large home that was turned into great retreat. There are winery's all around it, including one down the hill.

[Smiffy]

Two reasons why I liked the BREN.

1. It was easy to field strip, nothing was spring-loaded and apt to fly off into the undergrowth, unklike the GPMG that repalced it.

2.On the range you could pretend that it was a rifle. As long as you were firing single shots the target party couldn't tell the Bren from the rifle. The trick was to put 9 rounds in the bull and then 1 very wide. In their joy at your misfortune the target party would wave the marker from side to side to show your miss.That was when you slipped over to auto and shot the marker to matchwood.
This was frowned upon by those in authority, and the target party, but everyone else thought it was funny. It wasn't dangerous, except for flying splinters, and I suppose it cost the tax payer a couple of quid, but, as a Royal Marine Colour Sergeant said on one such occasion, "That's what you get if you let sailors lose with firearms."

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/images/misc/progress.gif

[old_pop2000]

Here is a set of videos showing the BAR firing.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Browning+Automatic+Rifle&sitesearch=

Hope these are interesting to all.

[Ed Rotondaro]

How true, how true!!! By the way, I've been getting a box of wine from a winery in the Temucula Valley of California. That area is about 60 minutes north on Hwy 15. We belong to their wine club. The name of the winery is Leonesse. We finished a Meritage recently. This is a wine that is used in blending. Here's the link. We visited them a few months ago.

http://www.leonessecellars.com/home.html

There is a great place to stay in the valley, its like a bed & breakfast. A large home that was turned into great retreat. There are winery's all around it, including one down the hill.

Dennis: Very nice, thank you! There are so many small vinyards out there that never make it out of California.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Two reasons why I liked the BREN.

1. It was easy to field strip, nothing was spring-loaded and apt to fly off into the undergrowth, unklike the GPMG that repalced it.

2.On the range you could pretend that it was a rifle. As long as you were firing single shots the target party couldn't tell the Bren from the rifle. The trick was to put 9 rounds in the bull and then 1 very wide. In their joy at your misfortune the target party would wave the marker from side to side to show your miss.That was when you slipped over to auto and shot the marker to matchwood.
This was frowned upon by those in authority, and the target party, but everyone else thought it was funny. It wasn't dangerous, except for flying splinters, and I suppose it cost the tax payer a couple of quid, but, as a Royal Marine Colour Sergeant said on one such occasion, "That's what you get if you let sailors lose with firearms."

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/images/misc/progress.gif

Smiffy:

From what I have read, the BREN was actually so accurate that it wasn't performing the role of a machnie gun, i.e. creating a "beating zone" of widely dispersed fire. Don't pay much heed to those Marines, they all think they are the best shots in the world.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is a set of videos showing the BAR firing.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Browning+Automatic+Rifle&sitesearch=

Hope these are interesting to all.

Dennis:

It seems like some folks fire it better than others, I still want one.

[john964]

Don't pay much heed to those Marines, they all think they are the best shots in the world.
Mostly because they are. In the USMC You are concidered a rifleman first and everything else second.

[Smiffy]

Smiffy:

From what I have read, the BREN was actually so accurate that it wasn't performing the role of a machnie gun, i.e. creating a "beating zone" of widely dispersed fire. Don't pay much heed to those Marines, they all think they are the best shots in the world.

You have to remember that the primary function of the Royal Marines is to protect the ship's officers from the crew!

"More cheese, Mr. Christian?"

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mostly because they are. In the USMC You are concidered a rifleman first and everything else second.


John:

I agree. Even USMC generals still have to qualify with the rifle once a year. Never argue with a Marine with a rifle, they know how to use it!

[Ed Rotondaro]

:D
You have to remember that the primary function of the Royal Marines is to protect the ship's officers from the crew!

"More cheese, Mr. Christian?"


Thanks Smiffy, that was too funny! God bless the Queen and the RN!:D

[john964]

John:

I agree. Even USMC generals still have to qualify with the rifle once a year. Never argue with a Marine with a rifle, they know how to use it!
No, kidding I belive that the current Commondaunt of the Marine Corps is qualified Expert in Pistol, Rifle, Machine Gun and Grenade Launcher

[Ed Rotondaro]

No, kidding I belive that the current Commondaunt of the Marine Corps is qualified Expert in Pistol, Rifle, Machine Gun and Grenade Launcher

John:

Can you imagine going to his house to pick up his daughter (assuming he has one) for a date? And she says "By the way this is my dad and he knows how to use more weapons than you've had hot meals?" Game over bro!

[john964]

John:

Can you imagine going to his house to pick up his daughter (assuming he has one) for a date? And she says "By the way this is my dad and he knows how to use more weapons than you've had hot meals?" Game over bro!Theres a country song titled "Cleaning this Gun" My Brother had the same problem when he was in the Army with his daughter, and one of my other brothers is currently having that problem he has 2 girls aged 17 and 15.