Bren vs BAR

[Deanimator]

Originally Posted by glennasher

Peter Kokalis, who wrote for the defunct "Soldier of Fortune" magazine

When did "SoF" get "defunct"? I'm pretty sure I saw a new issue a couple of weeks ago.

It's ok, although I prefer "Smallarms Review", a truly professional journal of NFA and other firearms.

[gjs238]

Originally Posted by gjs238

Is a belt-fed gun really as mobile as a magazine fed gun?
Can a belt-fed gun truly be a one-man weapon?

For a SAW, might the BREN (or to some extent the BAR) have an advantage over a belt fed gun (MG34, MG42, M1919, etc) in terms of mobility?
Every squad member can carry a magazine or two.
And there needn't be a dedicated "crew" for the gun.

On the other hand, US Rangers and Airborne used M1919's in lieu of BAR's.

Anyone know what the Marines used for SAW's?

Originally Posted by Deanimator

A proper belt pouch/box setup is only marginally less convenient over the long haul than magazines, with the added advantage that belted ammunition is FAR lighter for the same quantity of ammunition than ammunition in magazines. Magazine fed weapons are usually at least somewhat handier in the moment, especially compared to belt fed weapons using NONdisintegrating feed links as the Germans did. A number of weapons have had the provision to use both magazines and belts, including the current FN Minimi/M249, the Czech Vz52 and the Stoner 63.

Rangers and conventional airborne units used both BARs and M1919s.

Re: SAW magazine vs belt feed:

The US M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) has been renamed the M249 light machine gun (LMG).
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is considering designs for an infantry automatic rifle, which is planned to complement and partially replace the M249 in their service.

It appears the opinions of magazine vs belt feed swing back and forth.

[renrich]

If Hitler thought that a soldier could consistently hit a man sized target at 1000 meters with any rifle with iron sights, he was even crazier than I thought he was. I qualified as Expert with the Garand. We fired on the KD (known distance) range and at 500 yards we used a 30 inch bull. That is wider than the average man and at 500 yards with iron sights that bull is tiny and in those days I had much better than average eyesight. At around 500 yards a deer is small though a 7 power scope. Using volley fire on a formation of troops, I can see hits at 1000 meters. The early British troops(The Old Contemptibles) in WW1 were trained to get hits at 800 yards on groups of men with volley fire but I don't believe that a soldier can consistently hit a single man at 1000 meters(or much less) with a service rifle and iron sights. If the US Army had thought there would have been an overall advantage to it, they could have very simply increased the magazine capacity of the BAR to 30 rounds or so.

[Glider]

I totally agree that its impossible to consistently to hit a man sized target at 1000 yards with iron sights. I used to fire at up to 900 yards using an Enfield target rifle with peep sights. At this range the aiming mark was 4 ft wide and the lowest scoring hit was a lot bigger.
Simply spotting a man in camo at this range would be quite a feat

[parsifal]

I would argue that even hitting a man over open sights at even 300 yards under combat conditions is optimistic

[Soren]

It's very hard to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for most people, and only a sniper/sharpshooter can really achieve consistant hits on a human sized target at 1000m or more. But you are nonetheless capable of doing it with a full power rifle, while it would be impossible with an assault rifle. Hitler liked that his troops had a weapon with a long effective range, which for bolt action rifles usually was around 1000 to 1200m, and that was the direct reason for why he retained the K98k as the main infantry arm and mistrusted less powerful weapons the role.

That having been said German snipers were required to shoot groups no larger than a head sized target at 400m and a torso sized target at 600m, and kills past 1100 meters were confirmed on several occasions, Matthäus Hetzenaur accounting for one of these. There were also incidents were US troops found themselves under sniper fire from over 1200 yards away and even then casualties occured.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

It's very hard to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for most people, and only a sniper/sharpshooter can really achieve consistant hits on a human sized target at 1000m or more. But you are nonetheless capable of doing it with a full power rifle,

Or more accurately put
It's impossible to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for everyone. Only a sniper/sharpshooter can really achieve consistant hits on a human sized target at 1000m or more. But you are nonetheless capable of doing it with a full power rifle with a telescopic sight.

While it would be impossible with an assault rifle. Hitler liked that his troops had a weapon with a long effective range, which for bolt action rifles usually was around 1000 to 1200m, and that was the direct reason for why he retained the K98k as the main infantry arm and mistrusted less powerful weapons the role.

I find it hard to believe that even Hitler would believe this. For all his many faults he did serve with distinction in WW1 and would have known this it is simply not possible to see let alone hit anyone with iron sights at these ranges. Can you give any support to this statement.
FYI the peep sights that I used were not telescopic but are not practical for military use which is why the target had a site mark 48 inches wide.
The development of the machine pistol where its fair to say that Germany had a lead in WW1 and WW2 would question this statement.

[renrich]

As stated before, snipers during the War Between the States were able to make shots well past 500 yards with optical sights and black powder rifles but I don't believe that even an expert sniper can hit a man sized target at 1000 meters consistently over open sights. At 500 yards with the Garand and a peepsight, the Army got many trainees to hit that thirty inch bull at least some of the time, BUT, we were in a prone postion with a tight loop sling and knew the distance precisely and had the sights adjusted accordingly. I have done a lot of hunting in the West and made quite a few long shots but have never been able to get a shot where I could use a prone position( the grass or bushes being too high) and the range was always an estimate and often way off. To me, that experience more closely simulates combat conditions than firing on the KD range. Having said all this though, my hat is off to the NCOs where I was in basic for their ability to make at least some sort of rifleman out of young men many of which had never handled a firearm.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

Or more accurately put
It's impossible to hit anything past 500m with iron sights, thats true for everyone.

I find it hard to believe that even Hitler would believe this. For all his many faults he did serve with distinction in WW1 and would have known this it is simply not possible to see let alone hit anyone with iron sights at these ranges. Can you give any support to this statement.
FYI the peep sights that I used were not telescopic but are not practical for military use which is why the target had a site mark 48 inches wide.
The development of the machine pistol where its fair to say that Germany had a lead in WW1 and WW2 would question this statement.

I'm afraid that you're badly mistaken Glider. I've consistently been able to hit human sized targets at 600m with iron sights. Yep thats right, 600 meters. It can be done I promise you! And also at longer ranges!

Torso sized target, K31, 640 yards, 5 hits out of 7 shots! (71.5% hit rate) IRON SIGHTS!
YouTube - 640 yards, open sights, Swiss K31, Schmidt-Rubin Model 31

Torso sized target, K31, 1,000 yards, 2 hits out of 6 shots! (33% hit rate) IRON SIGHTS!
YouTube - 1,000 yards, open sights, Swiss K31 7.5x55 Schmidt-Rubin 7.5x55 rifle

Torso sized target, scoped K98k, 900 yards, 3 hits out of 4 shots! (75% hit rate)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8B4Me5HXNo

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Renrich

but I don't believe that even an expert sniper can hit a man sized target at 1000 meters consistently over open sights

I would agree, but a sniper usually has optics on his rifle, and with that it is absolutely possible and often done, hence my comment on that.

[Glider]

Soren
Your examples prove the point. They are Bench fired rifles, fired at a known distance, in perfect weather, by a specialist shot, almost certainly using hand made ammunition, at a bright target and using a scope to see the target. Not exactly typical combat conditions.

Personally, the best that I have done was a 92 at 900 and 500 yards with a grouping of about 30 inches at 900 yards and 18 inches at 500 yards, our rifles were held in the prone position not rested and the ammunition purchased. This is closer to combat but as I have said the sights whilst not telescopic were for target shooting, the weather was pretty good, the target clear and I was an experienced shot although mostly with a .22.

Your average solider would do well to spot a target at 500 yards let alone hit it first time.

[parsifal]

The videos are all very impressive, I will say. A small point, the second is at 1000 yds, but there is no verfication of the targets hits, except for the guys saying "got it". It might not be the case that he actually got it.......

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

Soren
Your examples prove the point. They are Bench fired rifles, fired at a known distance, in perfect weather, by a specialist shot, almost certainly using hand made ammunition, at a bright target and using a scope to see the target. Not exactly typical combat conditions.

Personally, the best that I have done was a 92 at 900 and 500 yards with a grouping of about 30 inches at 900 yards and 18 inches at 500 yards, our rifles were held in the prone position not rested and the ammunition purchased. This is closer to combat but as I have said the sights whilst not telescopic were for target shooting, the weather was pretty good, the target clear and I was an experienced shot although mostly with a .22.

Your average solider would do well to spot a target at 500 yards let alone hit it first time.

The videos just prove what I've been saying, nothing more, nothing less. The effective range of a rifle is around 1,000 to 1,200 meters, which is what Hitler was referring to each time he had to argue for the K98k. He however missed out on the fact that most combats took place at 300 to 400 meters, and thus a 1,200 meter effective range wasn't needed in most cases.

The rifles above were fired with ammunition no better than war time ammunition for the rifles in question (K31 & K98k) and at a torso sized targets (18 inches).

When shooting with open sights I always shoot with V sights, and when prone I can with very good consistency hit a human sized target at 600 meters. At 1,000 meters it's hard to see the target, but I can nonetheless hit it (Still the same type human silhouette target). With a scope I can hit a human sized target at 1,000m with very good consistency.

And like already mentioned German snipers were required to hit a head sized target at 400 meters without fail, and a torso sized target at 600 meters without fail. If they couldn't achieve this then they weren't applicable for the title of Scharfschützen.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by parsifal

The videos are all very impressive, I will say. A small point, the second is at 1000 yds, but there is no verfication of the targets hits, except for the guys saying "got it". It might not be the case that he actually got it.......

Parsifal I know the guy, he's a friend of mine, he got it, you can trust me on that. You can also hear the *gong*.

And yes, he's a great shot!

[Glider]

Soren
I doff my hat to you. Thats close to national team standard shooting with less accurate sights, without a tuned rifle and presumably limited coaching, you may want to take it up seriously.