“Commercial version” indeed. However, I believe prototypes were available as early as 1918, and had the war lasted into 1919, some may have found their way too the troops…
Thompson submachine gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_SMG
The Thompson Submachine Gun was designed by General John T. Thompson, who was inspired by the trench warfare of World War I to develop a “one-man, hand-held machine gun”, firing a rifle caliber round. While searching for a way to allow such a weapon to operate safely, Thompson came across a patent issued to John Bell Blish. Thompson found a financial backer, Thomas Fortune Ryan, and started the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in 1916 for the purpose of developing his weapon. The principal designers were Theodore H. Eickhoff, Oscar V. Payne, and George E. Goll. By late 1917, the limits of the Blish lock were discovered, and it had been found that the only cartridge currently in U.S. service suitable for use with the lock was the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol). The project was then titled “Annihilator I”, and by 1918, most of the design issues had been resolved. However, the war ended before prototypes could be shipped to Europe.
At an Auto-Ordnance board meeting in 1919 to discuss the marketing of the “Annihilator”, with the war over, the weapon was officially renamed the “Thompson Submachine Gun”. While other weapons had been developed shortly prior with similar objectives in mind, the Thompson was the first weapon to be labeled and marketed as a “submachine gun”.
Although its from the wrong century, I have always admired this gun, (nearly as much as the Thompson, Lewis, and Johnson firearms.
IIRC, that would be “the Dictator”, a heavy mortar used by Federal forces during the siege of Petersburg, Virginia towards the close of the American Civil War. 
Yes, “The Dictator,” 13-inch mortar.
David Knox, photographer.
October, 1864.
JT
The very one.
The M-1 beats the Kar98 if only for it’s rapid fire (the Kar was, of course, a bolt rifle, and shot slower than the M-1). As far as accuracy, however, the Kar98 probably beats the M-1.
[i]This from elsewhere in the forum:
I’ve dealt with the Kar 98k elsewhere on the forum, but a brief summary follows:
Recoil - punishing, and unnecessarily so.
Action - slow to operate, cocks on opening (makes opening the bolt harder but does reduce the lock time), and can be dirt-sensitive (too many bearing surfaces in the cocking piece mechanism). Bolt handle too far forward.
Magazine - only 5 round capacity.
Sights - Miserable - the blade is too coarse, and are designed in such a way that under stress you’ll shoot high (when the sights are lowered, the little U-notch sits at the bottom of a big, square notch. The temptation is to line the front post up with this big notch, not the little one, and therefore shoot high).
Heating - 3 rounds in rapid fire & the heat haze coming off the barrel starts to obscure the target and sights. 10rds & it’s getting really wobbly.
Safety catch - awkwardly placed, awkward to use.
Forward locking - although theoretically much stronger (this is only an issue if you want to make a hunting rifle using a high-pressure cartridge though), the breech face is shrouded by the front of the action - makes cleaning difficult & checking clear harder.
[/i]
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5009 - Man of Stoat
Yeah, I’ve heard this other places as well - the mass produced KAR98 wasn’t as accurate and reliable as many assume.
Then again, if somebody shot me with it, I’d be just incapacitated or dead.
I don’t know. I know the kar98k was the preferred weapon of the German snipers over the Gewehr 43.
[quote="“bwing55543"”]
I don’t know. I know the kar98k was the preferred weapon of the German snipers over the Gewehr 43.[/quote]
The 98 was the preferred weapon when equipped with the ZF39 or commercial scopes, the ZF41 was a dismal sight and hardly conducive to shooting over longer ranges.
The ‘sniper’ G/K43s accuracy was quite good when the precision sS Anchuss rds were used, unfortunately they were not generally available at the dirty end of the supply chain.
But as scoped G/K43s were only in front line service between late May 1944 and the end of the war, a little less than one year, for the majority of the conflict the Scharfschütze actually had little choice.
Completly pointless weapon. No detachable barrel and too small a magazine capacity to effectively operate as a light machinegun and too heavy and no semi-auto capability to be used as an infantry rifle.
Based on an outdated French concept of firing from the hip while crossing no-man’s land it was too late to see much service in WWI and like all LMG’s it was obselete at the beginning of WWII faceing the likes of the MG.34 and MG.42 GPMG’s.
Apart from that beautifully made guns and I’d imangine a blast on the range.
I dunno. I’ve never heard a veteran disparage a BAR before as it was a generally popular weapon prized for it’s rugged reliability. The troops developed tactics to overcome its shortcomings of the 20-round mag. by alternating the firing and reloading of two or more BAR gunners. American infantrymen often disregarded much of the dogma in their training and essentially developed their own tactics in the field…
The BAR was never meant as an equivalent of an MG34/42 or a “medium or GPMG.” This was more of a tactical difference in conceptualization regarding tactics of automatic fire and the nature of the rifleman. The Allies tended to believe that machine guns should be placed in classes of light, medium, and heavy for infantry support of fire and maneuver and the Americans at least regarded the rifleman as the central weapon of war. Whereas the Germans had already evolved into the general purpose machine gun concept in which the MG was the central infantry weapon and rifleman and sub-machine gunners were just support of the MG…
Why would it need a detachable barrel, given it wasn’t intended for sustained fire? It’d just be more weight for grunts to lug around, meaning it’d be ditched pretty soon once they realised they didn’t need it.
The BAR and similar weapons need to be assessed against the standard infantry weapons of WWII, which were mostly bolt action repeaters with an effective rate of fire in action of about 5 to 15 RPM, depending upon the skill of the rifleman and the circumstances. A fully auto BAR, or Bren or similar, with even a 20 round mag was a huge step up and a critical weapon in an infantry section.
Mag auto weapons have an inherent advantage over belt fed ones in infantry fire and movement, because there’s no belt to get tangled up in or carry while moving, and there’s no chance of picking up dirt to jam it like there is with a belt that gets into the dirt. You don’t need a No.2 to hold the belt or have to hold it up yourself.
As a machine gunner who used both M60 and L2 (roughly similar to BAR and Bren in function if not detail), I’d say each has its advantages and disadvantages depending upon the circumstances.
As an aside, one thing you won’t do with a mag one is kill the bloke carrying the belt. One Aussie in Vietnam slung a belt over his shoulder and managed to put the nose into the primer of a round on another belt, which fired and put the projectile into his chest, killing him. Not a reason for an army to favour mags over belts, unless you’re the one in a few billion who manages to kill himself that way.
Wonderful weapon the B.A.R. very useful to the troops, in any war it was used in. Way better than the A.R. 10, (like an M-16, only in 7.62 nato) controllable, potent, and dependable. whats not to like.
That’s no surprise though, Americans very rarely speak ill of their weapons even though there are obviously better designs available at the time. The Thompson is another classic example. Great weapon, but totally over engineered for the job at hand and the only reason it even went to war is because the US had no other viable alternative at the time.
Never said it was, I said that the advent of the GPMG rendered all light machineguns obsolete.
So it wasn’t designed for sustained fire, so it’s not a LMG. And it’s too heavy for a rifle… What role/purpose did it have again?
So what are we compairing the BAR with? The M1 Garand? The G.43? The SVT-40? Given that choice I’d probably choose the M1 or the G.43 as it’s a lighter semi-auto rifle.
Or are we comparing it against the likes of the Bren or DP-27? Given those choices I’d rather have the LMG’s because… well that’s what they are. Better magazine capacity and a weapon designed for the role.
Which is why the German squad armed mostly with bolt actions and one or two GPMG’s achieved fire superority over its American counter part in almost every encounter?
Which is why you have assault drums.
Bollocks. Without a barrel for pressure to develop behind the bullet, a round discharging like that is essentually harmless. It will not have the force required to pierce the ribcage.
I found it surprising too, so did a lot of others, which is why it was in an Australian Army routine (safety?) bulletin based on that event in the late 1960’s / early 1970’s, which is one of those odd events that stuck in my mind.
Significant pressure has to be developed to force the projectile out of the crimped neck of the cartridge case to commence its journey. Why isn’t that sufficient to penetrate a couple of inches of flesh?
If your view is right, then shark guns which have been killing sharks for years don’t work. They’re just a shotgun shell in a chamber with no barrel on the end of a stick with a firing pin in it.
Probably the reason it was called a Browning Automatic Rifle, not a Browning LMG.
Debatable just how sustained LMG sustained fire can be.
What role/purpose did it have again?
See my post #37 for one example.
The Marines who actually used them seemed to like them. If the BAR’s were so useless, you’d think they’d have got rid of them.
So what are we compairing the BAR with? The M1 Garand? The G.43? The SVT-40? Given that choice I’d probably choose the M1 or the G.43 as it’s a lighter semi-auto rifle.
I was comparing the BAR with common bolt action infantry weapons to which it was likely to be opposed, primarily as a squad suppressing weapon.
But compare it with an M1. Auto / Semi auto v. semi auto, 20 rds v 8 rds. You’re the enemy. Which one would you rather face, all other things being equal?
There’s no comparison between auto and semi-auto weapons.
Or are we comparing it against the likes of the Bren or DP-27? Given those choices I’d rather have the LMG’s because… well that’s what they are. Better magazine capacity and a weapon designed for the role.
Somewhat difficult if you happened to be in an American unit in WWII. They didn’t have the ammo, for a start.
Which is why the German squad armed mostly with bolt actions and one or two GPMG’s achieved fire superority over its American counter part in almost every encounter?
So what was the alternative for American units? Drop the BAR from all squads? How would that have improved things?
If the Germans achieved fire superiority over the Americans in almost every encounter, how come they kept retreating from 6 June 1944 until they lost the war?
The alternative would have been to adopt a proper LMG. Given that Inglis in Canada were producing the Bren in 30-06 (and 8 mm Mauser) for China at the time, they could have produced this design south of the border.
However, never underestimate the “not invented here” ethos of the US military at that time.
Another point, the comparison with the AR 10 is moot, given that one is a lightweight battle rifle with full auto capability, and the other is a strange contraption, too heavy to be a serious rifle (and firing from an open bolt, so not terribly accurate) yet is too light to be a proper LMG.
I’ve recalled since my last post on this that when I was a kid I was amusing myself flinging .22 LR rimfire ratshot rounds onto concrete until they went off. One went off apparently pointing somewhere towards my face. A few bits of ratshot penetrated my skin just fine without a barrel, from maybe 5 to 6 feet. They sure as hell didn’t disperse harmlessly within a couple of inches of the crimp. If it works with .22 shot, it’s gotta be a lot better with a 7.62 solid projectile.