Jump to content

BAR as a squad support weapon.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted by username:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If anyone thinks Steve McQueen could have carried any other weapon in the closing scenes of The Sand Pebbles...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He would have been better served by an M-16A2. More velocity, and it doesn't tear the tin cans or squirrels up so bad. After all, look at what happened to him in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More velocity, and not enough lead. 5.56 is fine if you're not going to hit anything anyway, but ya need some THREAT behind all that suppression. Slight exaggeration... but in a NATO environment, as opposed to jungle, I just never thought it was enough lead.

The web site M. Username cites is a long-standing favorite of mine. It has a bone to pick with Marshall & Sanow, and the probably bogus Strasbourg goat tests, and I tend to agree with it. Fackler's the man for military wound ballistics (Jeff Cooper is immortal, but not an infantryman), though the FBI studies in ballistic gelatin provided a lot of good physics that apply to all bullets, even if the focus was boring old handgun ammo. Debunking the hollow-point myths alone, was a better than average return for my tax dollar.

SO: nothing in modern wound ballistics proves that velocity is bad. However, everything points to "bigger is better", because depth of penetration AND tissue damage are the key to "stopping power", up to the point where the rifleman can no longer lay down effective suppressive fire due to recoil. Hence the "intermediate round" as exemplified by 7.62 x 39mm Soviet, where "bigger, faster, more controllable" all come together. And we all know where it came from... the MP44.

Fackler Sampler - Military Wounds

Or as a real student of the subject puts it,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The only method of reliably stopping a human with a handgun is to decrease the functioning capability of the central nervous system (CNS) and specifically, the brain and cervical spinal cord. There are two ways to accomplish this goal: 1) direct trauma to the CNS tissue resulting in tissue destruction and 2) lack of oxygen to the brain caused by bleeding and loss of blood pressure." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This does apply equally to a rifle bullet. It is only more efficient in achieving these ends. The .30 carbine, being closer to a handgun cartridge in performance, diminishes the range at which it is an effective incapacitator. On the other hand, at ranges over 100m we are not as worried about a few seconds of hostile capability after impact. We would still like to penetrate cover and vehicle skins.

AP in your squad's fire support weapon makes sense because you don't know what you'll encounter next. It wouldn't help "knock a man down" (over standard ball ammo), but it might make you feel better about being prepared for it. Good psychology, bad science. I think AP in the BAR was more the "ready for anything" mentality but await correction on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, try to be a little sarcastic about ballistics and what happens? ;)

Mark IV, you are obviously a gun geek. I guess it takes one to know one. The Great Stopping Power Debate will go on until they invent those phaser thingies from Star Trek, and then, God help me, they will argue over if you should glow red or blue before you vaporize.

I think the caliber, bullet type and other trivia are fun to discuss but only a mousefart in the wind compared to the skill and the will of the shooter. Governments issue usable weapons to the soldiers, and after that it is up to the guy with the gun to get it done or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Londoner:

Ah sorry mike i see what your saying. Still I'd be suprised if any of the Parachute battalions that went to the Falklands in 1982, were actually "issued" the rechambered Bren. You think so? My guess would be the para in the question either took it on his own initiative or captured it.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting... Capturing from who? The Bren was never issued to Argentina's troops. We used the heavy barrel bipod mounted version of the FAL (called FAP) in such rol, and the MAG as Platoon MG.

Previous to this, the LMG in use was the Madsen 1926, in combo with the Mauser 98... I'd rather believe the paras could get a Mauser than a Bren from the Argentina's soldiers smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

Posted by username:

He would have been better served by an M-16A2. More velocity, and it doesn't tear the tin cans or squirrels up so bad. After all, look at what happened to him in the end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering they werent thought of yet..

Maybe he should have taken the Lewis MG off the ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

[QB]

SO: nothing in modern wound ballistics proves that velocity is bad.

The .30 carbine, being closer to a handgun cartridge in performance, diminishes the range at which it is an effective incapacitator. On the other hand, at ranges over 100m we are not as worried about a few seconds of hostile capability after impact. We would still like to penetrate cover and vehicle skins.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that the enemy would have more than a few seconds.

I will just point to the battle reports. Most everyone I have read backs up what I am saying about the M1 Carbine. No one here has shown otherwise.

Most modern armies carry weapons that are higher velocity than the carbine. Nuff said.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...