[ Why not a Semiauto BAR as Service Rifle? ]
Hi guys, thanks for tuning in to another "Ask Ian" Q&A video on Forgotten Weapons.
I'm Ian McCollum, and our question today comes from Jack on Patreon, and Jack asks,
"Why did the US go on to develop the M1 Garand instead of continuing development of the BAR?
With the BAR you already have a self-loading rifle with as much firepower
as later battle rifles of the Cold War (like the M14),
including detachable 20 round magazines.
Why not just try to make a lighter weight, possibly semi-automatic only, BAR
instead of starting over entirely from scratch?"
That is an excellent question Jack.
And well, there are a couple of things that I want to talk about in answer to it.
First off, there was all of one, apparently, proposal following World War One
to do something pretty much just like that.
It comes from a Captain Green of the US Ordnance Department,
and he put forth this proposal in 1919.
... It's really a fairly prescient proposal in retrospect, he basically says,
"Look, the BAR is a good gun, but the full-auto is not really that beneficial.
And we should get rid of the full-auto, and make the BAR a semi-automatic only rifle."
And the reasons he gives for this are, the gun's not well set up for sustained fire,
it doesn't have quick change barrels, and this is absolutely a true thing.
This would come back to haunt the BAR in World War Two,
and in the Korean War in particular where it was pressed into service as a
sustained fire support weapon that it really wasn't made out to be.
Ammunition supply was difficult with the BAR in full-auto.
Those 20 round magazines ... emptied really fast,
and you had to have a lot of ammunition resupply if you were using it in full-auto.
The accuracy was reduced in full-auto, especially because the thing didn't have a bipod.
And what Green says is we should ditch the full-auto, make it semi-auto only.
It'll be more effective, it'll be more sustainable in combat.
... Continuous semi-auto fire is just as good as burst fire with the BAR,
and we can actually get rid of a lot of weight if we get rid of the full-auto.
Like we can take out some of the other components,
the gun doesn't have to be as robust if it's only semi-automatic.
Really suggesting [something] very similar to what you're talking about, Jack.
I want to read a bit of the response from the Infantry and Cavalry Board directly to you.
This is quoted in James Ballou's book "Rock in a Hard Place",
Collector Grade publications, it is an excellent book on the history of the BAR.
And among other things the Infantry and Cavalry Board,
which is responsible for determining what small arms are going to be developed and acquired,
says, "In the armament of the individual soldier the tendency of modern thought and progress
is believed to be towards the development of a self-loading shoulder rifle.
In combat the conflicting requirements of thin assaulting lines and great firepower therewith,
led to the adoption of the Browning Automatic Rifle as a front-line weapon,
which as a single-shot weapon is not satisfactory."
So when they say "single shot" they mean semi-automatic.
"A self-loading shoulder rifle capable of a high rate of fire for short periods of time,
together with the increased accuracy that is due to the fact
that the aim would not be disturbed by hand manipulation of the bolt ..."
(which is to say you're practically more accurate because you're staying on the sights
with every shot, not cycling the action manually like a bolt-action rifle)
"would greatly add to the firepower of front-line troops,
and probably meet all requirements as to firepower
now supposed to be solved by the inclusion of a BAR in each squad of infantry.
It's habitual use ..." (so they are talking about the theoretical future semi-automatic rifle),
"its habitual use will be as a single-shot weapon.
It should be clip fed with a bolt action, so that in case of
injury to the self-loading mechanism it can still be used as a bolt action rifle."
The BAR does not have a forward assist capability,
it doesn't have a reciprocating charging handle.
So ... you have a way to cycle the action back,
but you don't have a way to push the action forward
because of course it's an open bolt firing gun.
So that's not really necessarily conducive to it being semi-auto only.
"It should also be equipped with a throw-off, so that when desired
it can be used as an ordinary bolt-action rifle."
Like you can flip a switch to make it manually cycle.
This is one of the stupid things that more than a few
ordnance departments wanted around this time period.
"The mechanism should be simple and positive, it should not be heavier
than the Springfield rifle Model 1903, and use service ammunition.
The Ordnance Department is now developing a self-loading shoulder rifle known as the Garand,
and at the suggestion of the board it is also developing a rifle
on the Bang principle." That would be the Hatcher rifle.
"It's recommended that these rifles be completed and given thorough tests,
and experiments be continued with the view as to developing
a satisfactory weapon of this kind with ballistic powers equivalent - blah blah blah blah.
So essentially what we're getting there, ... there are a couple of core problems with the BAR
that lead to the US Ordnance Department not wanting to convert it into just a semi-auto rifle.
Because, yes, it is reliable, it is a well-proven system.
But first off, it uses box magazines.
And when the US put out its specific direct request for self-loading rifle prototypes in 1921,
they specifically did not want detachable box magazines, they wanted it clip fed.
And there's not really any way to effectively convert a BAR to use en bloc or stripper clips.
Secondly, the weight, they talk about the weight in that reply.
And again in the 1921 request for a self-loading rifle,
the maximum ... allowable weight is given as 9.5 pounds.
That's a huge cut from a BAR. [The M1918 BAR weighed 16 pounds.]
There's basically no way that you could actually take a BAR and make it
something that's 9.5 pounds without completely redesigning it.
So just between these two requirements
it makes sense that they would go ahead and start from scratch instead,
because the BAR fundamentally didn't do what they wanted as a self-loading rifle.
Now, did they want the right things? I would say arguably the answer is no.
In hindsight we can tell that detachable box magazines were definitely the way to go.
The weight requirement however is a valid concern.
... What you'd end up with if you had tried to lighten the BAR as much as possible
would be something like the modern HCAR ... from Ohio Ordnance.
And ... if I remember correctly, that's still like a 13 pound rifle.
Which, interestingly, is kind of the ... service issue weight of one of the new SIG XM5s.
So what does that say about ... I don't know, we'll bypass that little issue.
Fundamentally the BAR is too heavy, and it doesn't use the right loading mechanism.
And you can't fix either of those, and that is why the US government
did not look any harder at adapting the BAR into a semi-auto rifle.
Anyway, hopefully that was a useful answer to your question.
If you are interested in the BAR, I highly recommend "Rock in a Hard Place".
Probably the best single book out there about the BAR
and its development during World War One, World War Two, foreign developments on it.
There's not a ton in here on FN's post-war development.
There's a little bit on stuff like the FN-D and the DA1,
but its real strength is the American military use of the BAR.
Anyway, if you would like to have one of your questions answered in a video format like this,
hop on over to either Utreon or Patreon, join up,
and there is a thread on each of those platforms every month for Q&A questions like this one.
Thanks for watching.