Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/25/2016 9:28:33 PM EDT
|
I just recently purchased an OOW semi-auto BAR but don't have it yet. I've fired a full auto BAR at Battlefield Las Vegas recently but the experience kinda sucked because they wouldn't let me shoulder fire it and I was just firing it at an indoor range while awkwardly bending over to fire it from the bench on the bipod. For those of you who have an OOW M1918A3, did it satisfy your BAR needs or did you end up buying a transferable?
I'm seriously considering the Colt R75A listed a few months ago on Sturmgwehr, but I'm curious if those of you who own transferable BARs or have owned one in the past, if you would pay the present price of admission or if you think better choices are available. I love guns with historical significance, so it's hard to beat the BAR. They seem to be not only historical, but serviceable and overbuilt to the extent you can shoot it and not worry about destroying the gun from overuse. |
I love my BAR but its not your usual BAR. Mine is a Swedish Kg m/37 in 6.5 Swedish. It shoots like a dream and is very rare in the US. I have a friend with a 1918A2 but its not as fun to shoot w/o a pistol grip but obviously int he US market people will more identify with the US model. I like the R75 a lot and considered buying one as well but have not gotten around to taking the plunge. I almost bid on the wz28 Polish BAR but forgot the day the auction was on and blew it because it went for cheaper than it should have.  |
|
I do not own nor have I fired a BAR before so don't put to much weight on this opinion.
Personally I would not go with a transferable BAR. While they certainly have a lot of history they don't seem like a lot of fun to shoot, at least not in full auto...at least not compared to other MGs. 30.06 is a powerful cartridge and difficult to control in full auto, you pretty much have to shoot it prone from a bipod if you plan to hit anything. If you're thinking of a MG that's got lots of history, is cheap to feed and easy for most people of all ages and sizes to shoot consider a Thompson, Sten or M1 Carbine. At $25-35K for a BAR its one of the more expensive MG with historic significance. Plus you already have a semi-auto BAR, I would say maybe try that for awhile and see if that scratches your itch. |
|
Quoted:
I do not own nor have I fired a BAR before so don't put to much weight on this opinion. Personally I would not go with a transferable BAR. While they certainly have a lot of history they don't seem like a lot of fun to shoot, at least not in full auto...at least not compared to other MGs. 30.06 is a powerful cartridge and difficult to control in full auto, you pretty much have to shoot it prone from a bipod if you plan to hit anything. If you're thinking of a MG that's got lots of history, is cheap to feed and easy for most people of all ages and sizes to shoot consider a Thompson, Sten or M1 Carbine. At $25-35K for a BAR its one of the more expensive MG with historic significance. Plus you already have a semi-auto BAR, I would say maybe try that for awhile and see if that scratches your itch. I disagree. The BAR is one of the favorites to shoot in my full auto club. The weight and rate of fire makes it one of the more controllable large caliber machine guns out there. Definitely going to shoot it may story from bipod though due to weight. I'd ditch the semi auto BAR, the whole purpose of the browning Automatic rifle is the automatic part. A Garand is a much better semi auto gun. |
|
Quoted:
I disagree. The BAR is one of the favorites to shoot in my full auto club. The weight and rate of fire makes it one of the more controllable large caliber machine guns out there. Definitely going to shoot it may story from bipod though due to weight. I'd ditch the semi auto BAR, the whole purpose of the browning Automatic rifle is the automatic part. A Garand is a much better semi auto gun. Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not own nor have I fired a BAR before so don't put to much weight on this opinion. Personally I would not go with a transferable BAR. While they certainly have a lot of history they don't seem like a lot of fun to shoot, at least not in full auto...at least not compared to other MGs. 30.06 is a powerful cartridge and difficult to control in full auto, you pretty much have to shoot it prone from a bipod if you plan to hit anything. If you're thinking of a MG that's got lots of history, is cheap to feed and easy for most people of all ages and sizes to shoot consider a Thompson, Sten or M1 Carbine. At $25-35K for a BAR its one of the more expensive MG with historic significance. Plus you already have a semi-auto BAR, I would say maybe try that for awhile and see if that scratches your itch. I disagree. The BAR is one of the favorites to shoot in my full auto club. The weight and rate of fire makes it one of the more controllable large caliber machine guns out there. Definitely going to shoot it may story from bipod though due to weight. I'd ditch the semi auto BAR, the whole purpose of the browning Automatic rifle is the automatic part. A Garand is a much better semi auto gun. I just think if it were me and I had $30k to buy a MG(s) with, the BAR wouldn't be my first pick. I personally feel there are other guns in that era that would be cheaper to shoot and be more enjoyable to a wider variety of people than the BAR. For me half the fun of owning a MG is letting others enjoy it and the main issue I run into is trying to keep the thing fed. But again I've never shot one so maybe my opinion would be different if I had some trigger time with one. |
| BAR is awesome to shoot on fullauto. It is very controllable. And the historical significance makes it very unique. Spare parts are also still available. Assuming one has the M16, HK, and other "practical" (if that term can even be applied to MGs) bases covered, I think the BAR is a great addition to an advanced collection. |
|
Quoted:
I do not own nor have I fired a BAR before so don't put to much weight on this opinion. Personally I would not go with a transferable BAR. While they certainly have a lot of history they don't seem like a lot of fun to shoot, at least not in full auto...at least not compared to other MGs. 30.06 is a powerful cartridge and difficult to control in full auto, you pretty much have to shoot it prone from a bipod if you plan to hit anything. If you're thinking of a MG that's got lots of history, is cheap to feed and easy for most people of all ages and sizes to shoot consider a Thompson, Sten or M1 Carbine. At $25-35K for a BAR its one of the more expensive MG with historic significance. Plus you already have a semi-auto BAR, I would say maybe try that for awhile and see if that scratches your itch. They are fun in full auto. Why anyone would want to shoot a LMG without using the bipod is beyond me. |
|
Quoted: That Swedish BAR is amazing! That must shoot like a dream in 6.5 Swede. Any idea how many are in the registry? I think I've seen one for sale before gunbroker. |
|
I owned a transferable Winchester M1918 (upgraded to the A2 specs) BAR for many years. In shooting it, I found that heat was a big problem. Even firing short bursts, by the time you finished one or two magazines, the barrel would be practically glowing red hot. The inability to change barrels, and the limited 20-round magazine capacity, made it highly impractical, at least in comparison to my M60 MG (and I'm not at all a fan of the M60).
When I downsized my collection at around the time the Hughes Amendment was passed, the BAR was one of the guns that I sold. I regret that now, strictly for financial reasons. As a gun, the BAR was not one of my favorites. Recently, I built two of OOW's M1918A3 semiautomatic BAR's. These are adequate to satisfy my desire to have a BAR. It's worth noting that immediately after WW1, and based on experience in that war, there was a serious proposal in the Army to issue BAR's in a semiautomatic-only version. This proposal was not adopted because of the development of the Garand, and then later because of the pressing need for a light machine gun with the gathering WW2 war clouds. If the truth be told, the Army was not happy with the BAR but had to settle for it. The German MG34 and MG42, and the British Bren, were far superior. ETA: For the money you would spend for a transferable BAR, you could buy an M1919A4 Browning belt-fed and lots and lots of ammo. Now that would be a real machine gun! |
|
The BAR will be the last MG I sell.
with practice its very controllable. 3 Nazis walk into a BAR |
|
Quoted:
I owned a transferable Winchester M1918 (upgraded to the A2 specs) BAR for many years. In shooting it, I found that heat was a big problem. Even firing short bursts, by the time you finished one or two magazines, the barrel would be practically glowing red hot. The inability to change barrels, and the limited 20-round magazine capacity, made it highly impractical, at least in comparison to my M60 MG (and I'm not at all a fan of the M60). None of the BARs I have shot ever had that problem. |
|
Quoted:
None of the BARs I have shot ever had that problem. Quoted:
Quoted:
I owned a transferable Winchester M1918 (upgraded to the A2 specs) BAR for many years. In shooting it, I found that heat was a big problem. Even firing short bursts, by the time you finished one or two magazines, the barrel would be practically glowing red hot. The inability to change barrels, and the limited 20-round magazine capacity, made it highly impractical, at least in comparison to my M60 MG (and I'm not at all a fan of the M60). None of the BARs I have shot ever had that problem. yeah, not even close. |
|
ericoak wrote:
I'd ditch the semi auto BAR, the whole purpose of the browning Automatic rifle is the automatic part. A Garand is a much better semi auto gun. The original purpose of the BAR was "marching fire" across no-man's land in WW1. (The same idea that was behind the Pedersen Device.) Remember that the original design of the BAR didn't have any sort of bipod, had a selector that allowed single shots, and was issued with a belt that had a metal cup to steady the butt of the gun while firing from the hip. It was NOT a light machine gun in the category of, say, the Lewis or even the Chauchat. It was, as the name said, an automatic rifle. According to Jim Ballou's book Rock in a Hard Place, the army seriously considered a proposal, after WW1, to issue the BAR as semiautomatic only. Experience by some officers in WW1 showed the BAR to have been just as effective in the semiautomatic mode, while also considerably saving on ammunition. The proposal didn't come to anything because of the development of the Garand, which was clearly superior as a semiautomatic rifle. With WW2 looming, the army needed something for the light machine gun role, and they needed it in a hurry. The A2 modifications to the BAR were an attempt to make the best of a less-than-satisfactory situation. In WW2, the BAR was in no way the equal of the German MG 34 or 42, or the British Bren. It was a case of making do with what we had. It is not entirely unreasonable today for a collector to be satisfied with a semiautomatic version of the BAR. After all, this has historical antecedents. |
|
Quoted:
ericoak wrote: The original purpose of the BAR was "marching fire" across no-man's land in WW1. (The same idea that was behind the Pedersen Device.) Remember that the original design of the BAR didn't have any sort of bipod, had a selector that allowed single shots, and was issued with a belt that had a metal cup to steady the butt of the gun while firing from the hip. It was NOT a light machine gun in the category of, say, the Lewis or even the Chauchat. It was, as the name said, an automatic rifle. According to Jim Ballou's book Rock in a Hard Place, the army seriously considered a proposal, after WW1, to issue the BAR as semiautomatic only. Experience by some officers in WW1 showed the BAR to have been just as effective in the semiautomatic mode, while also considerably saving on ammunition. The proposal didn't come to anything because of the development of the Garand, which was clearly superior as a semiautomatic rifle. With WW2 looming, the army needed something for the light machine gun role, and they needed it in a hurry. The A2 modifications to the BAR were an attempt to make the best of a less-than-satisfactory situation. In WW2, the BAR was in no way the equal of the German MG 34 or 42, or the British Bren. It was a case of making do with what we had. It is not entirely unreasonable today for a collector to be satisfied with a semiautomatic version of the BAR. After all, this has historical antecedents. Quoted:
ericoak wrote: I'd ditch the semi auto BAR, the whole purpose of the browning Automatic rifle is the automatic part. A Garand is a much better semi auto gun. The original purpose of the BAR was "marching fire" across no-man's land in WW1. (The same idea that was behind the Pedersen Device.) Remember that the original design of the BAR didn't have any sort of bipod, had a selector that allowed single shots, and was issued with a belt that had a metal cup to steady the butt of the gun while firing from the hip. It was NOT a light machine gun in the category of, say, the Lewis or even the Chauchat. It was, as the name said, an automatic rifle. According to Jim Ballou's book Rock in a Hard Place, the army seriously considered a proposal, after WW1, to issue the BAR as semiautomatic only. Experience by some officers in WW1 showed the BAR to have been just as effective in the semiautomatic mode, while also considerably saving on ammunition. The proposal didn't come to anything because of the development of the Garand, which was clearly superior as a semiautomatic rifle. With WW2 looming, the army needed something for the light machine gun role, and they needed it in a hurry. The A2 modifications to the BAR were an attempt to make the best of a less-than-satisfactory situation. In WW2, the BAR was in no way the equal of the German MG 34 or 42, or the British Bren. It was a case of making do with what we had. It is not entirely unreasonable today for a collector to be satisfied with a semiautomatic version of the BAR. After all, this has historical antecedents. The original purpose was AUTOMATIC walking fire, which is what I said, automatic. I never said anything about a LMG. As you and I said, the Army realized that a semi auto BAR was worthless since an m1 Garand is a much better semi auto gun. |
|
I don't own a BAR, but I have an FN FAL HB. Similar category, rifle caliber, fixed barrel, bipod, magazine, etc. While it is not as nice to shoot as a BAR as it is lighter & faster. It does suffer some of the same drawbacks. It does get hot pretty fast & the best way to shoot is from the bipod. Shooting while standing can be fun for a few short bursts. But the bipod is great for long bursts & hitting the target. So get used to rolling around on the ground.
But if you handload, everything changes. I have discovered lightly loaded cast bullets for my FAL. I load them just hot enough to cycle the action (a plus for the FAL adjustable gas system). Now I have a big heavy SMG. I have even shot it at a few local CQB matches. While I normally place near the top, with the FAL & cast bullets I was middle of the pack. It is big & heavy & difficult to manuver around walls & through doorways. But is sure is fun. To attempt to answer you question about buying a BAR. If this is your first MG. Then no on the BAR, buy a SMG instead. But if you reload or are willing to start & this is not your first MG. I say buy the BAR now. |
Armory Sponsor