Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• I should add what distinguishes the BAR from a LMG, even though that's the catagory that it usually fits in. Oberiko

• Go ahead. Engineer

• Was it true that the US ordered Chauchats instead of the BAR partially because they didn't have the time to manufacture new guns, but also because they didn't want the technology to fall into the hands of the Germans? I remember hearing it, but thought it sounded strange. Hyperneural

I've heard the same thing, but I don't have a source. ASWilson 01:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The BAR hunting rifle currently manufactured by Browning is a modern semi-auto design that is toatlly unrelated to the military BAR.

I've looked at several sites, and they all saw the Browning saw some action, though a little, in the last months of WWI, so I edited the page. Mightfox

I have heard that line before, and while I do not have enough solid evidence to confirm or deny I feel I can make an intelligent guess. To me it seems very unlikely we would be worried about the germans capturing the technology of something like the BAR. To many people think only of the MG42 when it comes to German Machiene Guns, and while it was superiror to anything else in the field of battle that day, it was not the only german full auto weapon to hold this distinction. Thus given the fact that the German technology was already so far ahead of the allies in that area, it seems unlikely to me that this would be a legitimate concern. Klauth 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Germans were a scavenger army whether people want to believe it or not. They impressed everything they could get their hands on. However, when it comes to BARs I wouldn't think US style ones would have been captured, since they were not sold lend-lease to the Russians to my knowledge and not to anyone else for that matter. However, I'm sure the Germans picked up a number of FN BARs and Polish clones too, and impressed them to some degree. If you can find pictures of soldiers in Russia using Thompsons then I'm sure they were using 8mm BARs. --Thatguy96 17:19, 20 February 2006

BARs falling into German hands was a real concern in WWI. At that age the BAR was the most advanced automatic weapon of its class. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Was the BAR ever considered to be used as a sniper rifle?, Just asking becouse say if there is a situtation the Sniper would have to use full automatic?. User:EX STAB

yes COD 3 made it so overpowerd(Esskater11 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

No idea about COD 3 making it overpowered. The BAR uses the same .30-'06 round as the M1Garand and thus should be equally powerfulSB Pete (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is a situation where a sniper would have to use full auto fire, it is when he is filling in for, say, the machinegunner. IOW, there is no such situation for the role.--Sctn2labor (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the use of a fully automatic rifle in the sniper role, I have never heard of such use. The role of the sniper is precise fire. Full-auto is by definition less precise than semi-auto. Also, an open-bolt full auto design like the BAR would make a VERY poor platform for any kind of precision work. You are perhaps thinking more along the lines of the Designated Marksman (DMR) or Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) roles. The M1918 was used in the IAR role and was replaced as such by the full-auto M14. This was found to be lacking however as the M14 was (and remains) very hard to control in full-auto use. The IAR role was essentially supplanted by the LMG role in US military doctrine. The M249 (FN Minimi) is the current weapon for that role although the

here under the wikipedia article for Infantry Automatic Rifle.SB Pete (talk

) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the new FN FNAR which is a modern rendition of the BAR (Browning being a subsidiary of FN these days. It comes equipped with a picatinny rail. SB Pete (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The FNAR is based on the commercial BAR design, not the military M1918 BAR. There is no relationship between the two designs other than the name. --D.E. Watters (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks for that. For some reason I thought the FNAR was a revitalization of the M1918. Really not sure why I ever thought that. It certainly wouldn't make any sense to use an open bolt design for what they are marketing the FNAR as. Anyways, I checked. You are indeed correct. It IS based on the Commercial BAR design. My apologies to anyone I confused.SB Pete (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No argument that the Germans scavenged weapons, that was one of the primary things the Waffen-S.S. were trained to do (especially their volunteer regiments). The point that I was making is that when the other side already has better technology their capturing yours is less of a concern. It would be like being afraid that Ferrari will steal a Corvette. Both are nice but Ferrari wouldnt really have anything to gain from it. Save maybe one more car out there, they won't be gaining any remarkable technological advances from it.

Doesn't changet the facts. The German's went to war in 1939 with over a 100 different types of vehicles in inventory, a logistical nightmare, and still made heavy use horse-drawn wagons. They took because they needed the numbers, not because the equipment was particularly good. This would be one of the causes of the German defeat was the lack of logistical cohesion and industrial base to support the war effort for the prolonged period of time. Even by 1944 the Germans were still making use of anything they could scavange from the field to replace the heavy losses. --Thatguy96 21:28, 21 February 2006

You seem to have missed the point of my comment in totality. I am not debating if the germans scavenged or even if they needed to. My point was that there wouldn't be any advantageous gain of technology, by aquiring the BAR. The fact they did aquire them is immaterial, the only gain from doing so is being able to equip one more soldier. The fact they could not produce enough of their advanced technology of course taken into account and acknowledged. Klauth 02:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I did miss your point, though I see it now. However, the fact that it happened regardless means that it should be mentioned in that light. The superiorirty of various weapons depending on doctrine and the like is probably debatable to a degree as well. --Thatguy96 22:50, 21 February 2006

agreed Klauth 07:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect but you may all be missing the point. The fear of the Germans capturing a BAR was during WW1, not WW2. DMorpheus 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't have a space for the modern BAR civilian rifles. I realize they're not the same thing at all from an engineering perspective, but problematically they have the same name. They don't seem to have their own page either. Suggestions on making a section here, vs a new page, vs some other method? Arthurrh 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Ohio Ordnance M1918A3 is included, but you are correct about Browning's current line of BAR hunting rifles. I think a seperate article should be made for those rifles, because they are internally different and are not "M1918"s which should help in disambiguation. -- Thatguy96 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So what should the article title be? Browning BAR (civilian)? With entries on the disambiguation page and small line in this BAR article? Arthurrh 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that it might not be as easy to do as I might've thought. I was actually thinking Browning Automatic Rifle, but I'm sure that redirects here, and people putting that in would more likely be looking for the M1918 article. I was just thinking about the AR-15 and M16 articles. Hmm, any other ideas? -- Thatguy96 14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Browning BAR would do nicely. It's got the name of the company first. You could put a disclaimer in both articles cross-directing them. The Browning BAR does deserve a separate article if for no other reason than as a disambiguation.--Asams10 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A World War II veteran that died last weeak, told me that this weapon was very good to use and shoot, but maintenance was a little dificult.Agre22 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

My father used the BAR in combat in New Guinea and the Phillipines in WWII. He won a personal bronze star medal by aggressively fighting a Japanese patrol inflicting several causalties with a BAR so I believe he knew something about it. He used only two weapons in WWII: the BAR if he could get it and the M1 Garand second; he had no use for the .45 pistol, .45 submachinegun, 12 ga trench gun or M1 carbine: if a gun would not shoot through a palm tree trunk and kill the enemy, it was useless for jungle fighting. BAR and Garand would shoot through a tree, the others would not. On patrol, the BAR would be stripped of bipod and any extra accessories and used as a rifle; in bunker or foxhole, the BAR would be used as a light machinegun with bipod and all the accessories bolted back on. Also, the original semi and full auto version was easier for the user to maintain; the slow and fast full auto version often had to be turned over to an armorer for thorough maintenance. The non-replacable (screwed in) barrel hindered sustained fire; my father told me that in the battle at Lone Tree Hill in New Guinea he burned out the barrel of a BAR. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The wz. 1928 is a Polish-made version of the Model 1925. The

I think that they should not be merged because the are two different weapons and they are used in different ways. USN1996 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It would require a singular effort of significant ignorance to merge these two articles. It would be like merging the RK_62 article into AK-47. One is a derivative, yes, but with significant differences and a unique history. Furthermore this may not be "official" Wiki policy or whatnot, but it harms nothing to have an article for this distinct derivative. If it then returned to significantly alter the BAR's development, then yes, it may be apropos to merge, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that wz.1928's redesign affected the long history of the BAR. --Sctn2labor (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you're kidding about merging these two articles, right? You would have to be because that is about as intelligent as merging the

It's very clear that you ahve already adulterated this article with this unfounded, grammatically ignorant article. There is no record of this weapon, and it wasn't already mentioned in the main article, it was put there buy you, with the same poor english that your page has. It's sad what people do to others work. Extensive work went into this page, the least you could have done was to have been honest. The polish couldn't design anything, let alone improve upon an already excellent weapon. And due to the firing mechanics of this weapon, there would be no way to get it to fire 1100 rpm, as well as the fact that it only had a 20 round clip. That is the most ignorant and unsubstantiated claim that could be made. There is a more substantiated article on this subject than your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.211.187 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, idiot, you're calling the Polish stupid and inept, let me point out that you don't know that indenting the first line of your post causes it to all end up on one line. Further, you are too stupid to know how to sign your posts. Also, you don't know to capitalize "Polish" and "English", so your grammatical ignorance claim is laughable. Try improving the articles or go away, but at the least, keep your hate away from Wikipedia, please. We're a community. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. Just noticed this little gem today. I must say, wow.

Koalorka (talk

) 13:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Germans used captured examples of every gun in service with the Allies during WWII; I'm not sure that the BAR is especially notable in that respect unless there's some proof the Germans had a systematic programme in place to rechamber the captured guns to one of their service cartridges (as was done with the PPSh-41) or did something else along those lines with the guns. Thoughts? Commander Zulu (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Germany was noted for adopting foreign-made weapons, either captured or made in occupied countries, going so far as to assign model numbers to them. Let's see, Germany occupied FN and FN made the BAR during this time IIRC. Also, I believe there were a few countries in the occupied zone that also issued the BAR. Given the BAR worked better than, well, the Germans didn't have anything in that class, did they? What I'm saying is that it's not dubious and, frankly, I think I've read it in some primary documents and secondary works also. Been a while though. Oh, and they didn't have to rechamber it, necessarily. They had sufficient stocks of .30-06 IIRC as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough; I just wasn't sure if the BAR was one of the many, many "foreign" guns the Germans had assigned a model number to (which was pretty much every gun used by anyone involved in WWII) or if they did actually recognise it as a semi-issue combat weapon. Seeing is it's quite likely the latter, then there's no problem. :) Commander Zulu (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the book, "Rock in a Hard Place", by James L. Ballou, showed that 839 BARs were marked through FN to Europe, most in 6.5x55mm but 39 of them were in 7.92mm Mauser(also used by the Polish). FN then took over production and made 10,000 rifles for the Polish in 1929 and 1930. This rifle, the wz.28, featured a pistol grip and was chambered in, of course, 7.92x57mm. This was presumably a metric pattern gun, much like the wz.30, however it is not perfectly clear that the conversion was done prior to the wz.28 contract. Dieudonné Saive oversaw production of the wz.28 though he does not appear to have been involved in its development or production engineering. Saive designed a rate reducer for the wz.30. The wz.30 used by Belgium and exorted to Sweeden in 6.5 caliber and Ethiopia and China in 7.92mm. The German designation was the Maschinengewehr 127(b). The later FN model D, had a removable barrel. It, too, was captured and used by the Germans as the Maschinengewehr-Lafette 127 (b). So, if the Polish had 10,000 of them and FN was producing them up till the point they were overrun... and were tooled to produce them in 7.92mm, it seems more than likely that they were actually used. There were confirmed reports that the Japanese used the FN wz.30 during WWII. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems a pretty solid case for Nazi Germany remaining as a user, although from my own readings it would seem production on most "captured" guns stopped when the Germans over-ran their respective armouries; I've seen several sources state that the Browning Hi-Power was the only small arm produced and used by both sides during WWII. The Japanese had knock-offs of all sorts of stuff, to be fair- their LMGs and MMGs were copies of the the Lewis and Hotchkiss guns (the ammo was even interchangeable)- so it doesn't surprise me that they had some wz.30s acquired from somewhere as well. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A scan shows that later in the book, actual use by the Germans is described at length. The Polish made an undisclosed number of guns following their 10,000 order. Sweeden, Finland, Poland, and Belgium all ordered the guns and Japan, Russia, and Germany all used captured weapons in correspondingly greater numbers. No confirmation that they made the BAR under occupation, but why not? The lesson is that I should actually find time to read some of the books I've accumulated in the last, well, there's lots of books. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My pedantic compulsion is acting up again. The title just seems incorrect as it is neither the official military designation or popular name. I would propose a change to simply "Browning Automatic Rifle"—what the gun was known as commercially and likely the most widespread name for the weapon in mainstream literature and popular culture.

I'd tend to disagree on two points. First, "Browning Automatic Rifle" is already in the title. Secondly, "Browning Automatic Rifle" isn't specific enough as the Browning BAR commrecial hunting rifle is also referred to as such. I believe the title should also act as a built-in disambiguation. Secondly, the convention in gun publications is to list the model designation first and then the common name. M3 Grease Gun. M1941 Johnson Rifle. M1 Garand. Just my opinion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let you correct the, ahem, M3 designation above yourself... But I agree with the rest. It's just these voices in my head sometimes...

Koalorka (talk

) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, but the M1918 was referred to officially as the Browning Automatic Rifle. Guess that proves my point inadvertantly. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Added Pakistan as a country that used the M1918 here's a photo with Pakistani Troops and a team that apparently acquired it http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/war/wargallery/images/65war_infantrybrb.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.27.223 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know how to correct it. user: wnewbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.123.226 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the guy on the left carries a Colt Monitor:

Is that really so ? If it is, I believe the fact is worth mentioning somewhere in the article.

213.87.137.25 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting find. It does look like a Browning... Maybe an 8x57mm Polish wz 28 (I think that's the designation) captured in 1939 that found its way to Moscow? I think that the Monitor had some kind of a muzzlebreak, but the one in the pic has no muzzle attachment.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

sounds very plausible.

213.87.141.170 (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• people on one forum told that the gun is a Belgian-made FN M.1928 which was used by the Polish since early 1930s. 213.87.136.80 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know about Belgian-made, but the wz 28 was produced under license from FN. I suppose they may have gotten and retained a few Belgian-made weapons used in trials, and this happens to be one of those captured by the Russians in 1939.

S.L.A. Marshall was not a general, but a WWI private. He wore a self-made star on a hat he frequently wore to further the impression he was a general. Further, as a historian, he has been discredited for creating "history" out of thin air, declaring that he could sell anything, even if he wrote it on toilet paper. Strongly suggest any article containing a reference to Marshall be rewritten to exclude his views or sourced to somebody or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.6.48.67 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Try doing at least a little fact-based research before you make stupid claims here.

SLA Marshall was a Brigadier General. The US Army does not tolerate privates sticking stars on their caps and pretending to be general officers. Nor do they assign privates---pretending to be generals---to the position of military historian, publishing hundreds of essays and books under the alleged "private"'s name as official US Army materials.

Nor are bogus "generals" buried in Arlington National Cemetery, with their grave markers listing their rank as "Brigadier General."

A number of officers and historians have questioned some of Marshall's claims. None has questioned that he was a legitimate Brigadier General in the US Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.62.58 (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Try a little research yourself. David H. Hackworth has never been known to tell a lie. He said SLA Marshall walked around with a home-made star on his hat. Take it or leave it. Marshall's work has been pretty much discredited, with soldiers and many others "bitterly complaining" about his lack of accuracy, which Hackworth and others describes as fictional. Personally, I'm not that interested in helping Wikipedia, people are too much into aggression rather than facts, but SLA is full of nonsense. I've seen many other negative references over many years relating to Marshall. Those who care enough should research it and correct the article, if accuracy is of paramount concern to wikipedia. I've got more important things to do. Finally, this is a talk page. If there is an error, this is the place to make it. I am entirely correct to make an error here, if I have made one. I'm not interested in correcting the article, you want to provide incorrect information in wikipedia, you want others to absorb wikipedia irresponsibility, have at it. SLA Marshall is discredited. For one example, here's a quote from the bottom of wikipedia's page for Marshall: "S.L.A. Marshall’s assertion that soldiers do not fire their weapons – can be verifiably disproven." Where in the wikipedia article is there any sourced reference for SLA Marhsall's personal history? For me, wikipedia is a fast read for leading elements, nothing else. I see errors all the time, and have no motivation to engage in lengthy diatribes over them with wiki producer's personal fiefdom. For reliable accuracy, I go elsewhere, as any responsible person should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.15.202 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are making this horseshit up as you go. When and where did Colonel Hackworth say that BG Marshall "walked around with a home-made star on his hat"? Odd that Colonel Hackworth himself said that he was assigned BY THE US ARMY to work with Marshall. Guess the US Army itself was in the habit of sponsoring "pretend generals" on tourist vacations to war-zones?

Crawl back under your rock, or down the stairs to your mom's basement, or where ever it is silly little cunts like you come from. What a fucking waste of skin you are.

These claims are nonsense. Cite a primary source, not second-hand claims from someone who specializes in the minutia of BAR models rather than the actual use of the weapon.

No such claim is supported by the military publication, US Army Field Manual FM 23-15, covering the doctrine for the use of the BAR. The 1940 edition can be downloaded at www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-15.PDF and would have been the controlling doctrine during WW II. Not a word in it about picking the "smallest" troops to carry BARs.

Similar claims are commonly made today---usually at the bar, down at the VFW, during the retelling of tales that start "Now this is no shit, there I was..." regarding assignment of machineguns such as the M240 and M249, and were made in the past regarding the M60. Such claims are not supported by any documentation, nor do they appear anywhere in the doctrinal references such as Army Field Manual 3-22.68, the basic Army (and Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force) doctrinal guide for use of light and general purpose machineguns in the US forces.

These claims are what we call "myths" when we are being polite. Or "bullshit" when we are being realistic. No different than the "they put saltpeter in the food" myths.

It is indeed true that small men ( think high school cross country runners ) were assigned to carry BAR and 1919 A4/6. The big boys could hardly hump there own butts 20 plus miles a day. Source ---- I was there; 1961,first platoon A 1/16 First Infantry Div. MOS 111.10. Simply go to your local distant run and note if any big boys finish up front or at all. Any platoon Sargent trying to get the "job" done in the field doesn't care much what is in FM 23-15 or FM 3-22.68 Pjmoonmullins (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.214.117 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this: M1 Garand has barrel length 610 mm and muzzle velocity 853 m/s. So why Browning M1918, which has exactly the same barrel length and uses the same cartridge, would have muzzle velocity 860 m/s? There is a mistake somewhere. Историк2010 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it may have something to do with the different muzzle velocities of the 30.06 ball mk 1 and mk 2 cartridge types. I think that is where the confusion lies. Although if true, how it came about I have no idea.

talk

) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This phrase: "A variant of the original M1918 BAR, the Colt Monitor Machine Rifle, remains the lightest production automatic gun to fire the .30-06 Springfield cartridge" conflicts with the existence of the M1941 Johnson Machine Gun, which weighed 5.9 kg or 13.01 lbs (according to http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=232 though the Wikipedia page for this weapon simply lists it as 13 lbs) compared to 6.0 kg or 13.2 lbs for the Colt Monitor. (though lightened derivatives of the BAR produced by FN and Pland also lightened this to match 13.0 lbs, albeit with 8mm mauser ammunition in the latter case) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.102.35 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305092116/http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Monitor.pdf to http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Monitor.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is said in the intro that: "Although the weapon did see some action in World War I, the BAR did not become standard issue in the U.S. Army until 1938"

And yet I have the M1918 automatic rifle referenced multiple times in the basic field manual volume II infantry drill regulations of 1931. Unless there is a solid source for such a strange claim, I believe it should be deleted Thom430 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was an assault rifle beacuse it used short rifle ammunition or carbine ammunition short rifles where super carbines because of that it was intermittent ammunition for it,s time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:443:480:6ED9:146A:66DE:5830:2BB5 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle: It must be capable of selective fire. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine. It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

It is not an assault rifle. It uses .30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm), .303 British (7.7×56mmR), 7.92×57mm Mauser(M1918, M1922, M1918A1, M1918A2), 7.92×57mm Mauser (wz. 1928), and 6.5×55mm (Kg m/21, m/37). They're full powered cartidges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.185.222 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

More important than looking up definitions and then trying to apply them (which is likely

WP:OR), is what the best reliable sources specifically classify the BAR as. (Hohum ^@

) 17:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208124647/http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html to http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Walter":

• From FN FNC: Walter, John: Rifles of the World (3rd ed.), page 123. Krause Publications, 2006.
• From
  ISBN 0-89689-241-7
  .

• From MG 08: Smith, Joseph E. (1969). Small Arms of the World (11 ed.). Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Stackpole Company. p. 719.
• From Vz. 24: Smith, p. 295
• From Chiang Kai-shek rifle: Smith, Joseph E. (1969). "Chinese rifles". Small Arms of the World (11 ed.). Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Stackpole Company. p. 294.

Reference named "WG":

• From FN P-12: "FN FNAR sniper rifle (USA / Belgium)". World Guns. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• From Dror light machine gun: "Modern Firearms – Dror". World.guns.ru. Retrieved 2015-06-06.
• From FM 24/29 light machine gun: http://world.guns.ru/machine/fr/mac-m1924-e.html

Reference named "Capie":

• From
  ISBN 978-0864734532
  .
• From
  ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2
  .
• From
  ISBN 978-0864734532
  .
• From
  ISBN 978-0864734532
  .
• From
  ISBN 978-0864734532
  .
• From
  ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2
  .
• From
  ISBN 978-0864734532
  .

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote: " Ohio Ordnance Works, Inc., in Chardon, Ohio, who holds an exclusive patent for the 1918A3-SLR (Self-Loading Rifle)"
Claim seem dubious, considering the gun was developed in 1917-1918 and patent for its constuction ( here - https://patents.google.com/patent/US1293022A/en ) expired in mid-1936. --RussianTrooper (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Was a 30 Round Magazine ever considered?, Im asking becouse it only took 20 rounds which ran out soon. Did the US ever consider adopting the Bren gun in .30-06 Calibre?User:EX STAB

MAGAZINES: If I had to guess, yes they probably considered it. But it most likely wouldn't have helped as much as you would think.

For starters, the BAR loads from the bottom. So it is hard to go prone without a bipod. Even harder if you are using magazines that are .5 times longer.

2. ammo is heavy and thirty round magazines are even heavier. And if you want your weight to remain the same, then carrying thirty instead of twenty-round magazines does not increase capacity.

3. if a soldier is holding the BAR, he know has to carry 10 more rounds of weight when the gun is fully loaded. This is not ideal since the BAR is already fairly heavy.

4. thirty-round magazines might not allow enough room to use the bipod. You might have to design a new bipod for this, and old ones need to be replaced.

5. In WWII, LMGs(not GPMGs, MMGs, or HMGs. just LMGs) almost always used 20-round magazines. So if 20-rounds per magazine is considered satisfactory, then there is no need to change it. In other words: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

MAG DUMPING: The BAR was outfitted with a selector switch to change from slow or fast fire. And even in fast-fire mode, it is not the fastest firing LMG used in WWII. So I think that mag-dumping wasn't really a problem with this gun using WWII standards(if anyone has better reasoning, please say so).

.30-06 BREN: The BREN is a customized ZB-26(or was it 23?) that the british used to replace their aging LMGs of the past. I bet it was considered for adoption by the US, but it would have to good enough to do two things:

1. prove it is way better than the BAR.

2. after step one, it must be mass-producable. This can hinge on the current circumstances: if a country has just adopted a new gun and started producing it, they are unlikely to immediately adopt its replacement(this is why the Johnson rifle wasn't adopted). If a gun is too complicated and costly to produce, it is unlikely to get adopted(this is why the Thompson was replaced). If a gun is in a different caliber than is available, it is unlikely to get adopted.

And even though the BREN checks out on all this stuff, it is important to realize that the BAR was not horrible. It was capable of the job it was used for. It may not have been the best, but it definitely wasn't the worst. In this case, there was simply no need to replace the BAR with the BREN.

Does this answer your questions?Blamazon (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)