M14 and M1918A2

82trooper

Can anyone help me understand why one of the major complaints about the M-14 was that it was "virtually uncontrolable" in full auto, but one never seems to read that about the BAR? Some quick research showed the BAR "normal" rate of fire at 500-650 RPM, and for the M14 at 750. Did the extra 100 RPM make such a control difference? Or are there other design factors that lead to this critism? Is the 7.62mm NATO vs .30-06 an issue? Why such a bad rap and everyone seems to have loved the BAR? [?]

Inquiring minds want to know.......
Thanks!!

rufe-snow

The weight of the firearm has a lot to do with it's controllability in full auto. I believe that their was something like a 7 lb difference in weight between the selective fire M 14, and the BAR.

Herschel

I carried a BAR in training and I can confirm that it felt a lot heavier with a weight of 20 lbs vs the 8.7 lbs for the M14. I don't recall the difference in velocity with the ball ammo but with 172 gr .30 Cal NM velocity of 2640 and the 172 gr. 7.62 NM velocity of 2550, I don't think the difference in velocity would make that much difference in controlability. I would say the rate of fire and weight of the weapon is the reason for the difference in controlability.

givette

BAR's I fired jumped similar to the M14 when fired on 'fast-auto'. The slower rate (slow auto setting), coupled with considerably more weight, made it very accurate (read: no flyers). The slow, rhythmic rate of fire made possible the re-acquisition of the sight picture between shots to all but the complete novice, or wussy-puss.

FYI: the BAR's had three selector settings. Safe, fire, auto. Any setting off 'safe' would empty the magazine with one trigger pull. There was no 'semi'. Best, Joe

Nwcid

The BAR was meant to be used from a bipod vs a true shoulder fired weapon.

Just think, the M-60 also fires a .308 (7.62x51) round. It comes in at 25ish pounds and is very effective. It was not designed (this is not to say it can't be) used from the shoulder. It was meant to be used from bipod, tripod or other supported position.

The M14 was designed to be a should fired rifle. Add 5+ pounds and a bipod to it, use it from a supported position of some kind and I am sure it would be much more effective a full auto fire.

kimi

The BAR was a shoulder fired weapon. Firing it from the shoulder, hip, or from under the arm was common, in addition to firing it from the prone position or from a foxhole with use of the bipods. A good BAR man could often fire a burst of three rounds with a quick touch to the trigger and little upward movement due to the weight. The BAR's we had also used buffers in the stock to help reduce recoil and improve accuracy.

givette

quote:Originally posted by kimi
The BAR was a shoulder fired weapon. Firing it from the shoulder, hip, or from under the arm was common, in addition to firing it from the prone position or from a foxhole with use of the bipods. A good BAR man could often fire a burst of three rounds with a quick touch to the trigger and little upward movement due to the weight. The BAR's we had also used buffers in the stock to help reduce recoil and improve accuracy.

Yep. Fired from the shoulder under 'fast auto' would allow the BAR to fly somewhat similar to the M14. Firing from the shoulder under 'slow auto' can get a good shooter to hit 'minute of human' while holding down the trigger. Neat, huh?

About the buffer assembly, recoil reduction was a by-product, and not the primary reason for having it.

The selector switch setting 'tweaked' the buffer rebound rate allowing for the rate of fire. Secondary result under slow rate was more of a gradual push, rather than a sharp kick. Best of both worlds! I guess the OP is sure getting an earful[:D] Best again, Joe

kimi

quote:Originally posted by givette
quote:Originally posted by kimi
The BAR was a shoulder fired weapon. Firing it from the shoulder, hip, or from under the arm was common, in addition to firing it from the prone position or from a foxhole with use of the bipods. A good BAR man could often fire a burst of three rounds with a quick touch to the trigger and little upward movement due to the weight. The BAR's we had also used buffers in the stock to help reduce recoil and improve accuracy.

Yep. Fired from the shoulder under 'fast auto' would allow the BAR to fly somewhat similar to the M14. Firing from the shoulder under 'slow auto' can get a good shooter to hit 'minute of human' while holding down the trigger. Neat, huh?

About the buffer assembly, recoil reduction was a by-product, and not the primary reason for having it.

The selector switch setting 'tweaked' the buffer rebound rate allowing for the rate of fire. Secondary result under slow rate was more of a gradual push, rather than a sharp kick. Best of both worlds! I guess the OP is sure getting an earful[:D] Best again, Joe


You're right, the recoil reduction was a by-product of the buffer assembly, and you're also right the tweaking for the rate of fire via the switch. Although I did not carry the BAR when I was in the infantry, I had three BAR men in my squad, and in those days we were all fairly well drilled on it in case the BAR man went down. Days gone by [:)] Night joe.

tsr1965

The laws of physics apply here. The more mass, the less recoil, and more controlability you would have. The less mass, the more recoil, and less controlability one would have.

Both were formidable war machines, and even some bandits like Bonnie & Clyde liked the BAR. It was also the means of their demise.

Best

82trooper

Thanks to everyone for their input.
cheers!
Mike