Gun Debate

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#35

Id have to go with MP44 as my secound choice. But can u explain why the BAR was good, so far I got nothing really decent on it.[/quote]

THE BREN LMG

Manufacturer:
Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock

Calibre:
.303 inch British

Length Overall:
1,150mm (42.5 inches)

Weight empty:
10.15kg (22.38lb)

Barrel:
635mm (25.0 inches), 6 groove Right Hand

Feed system:
30-round detachable box

Rate of fire:
500 rounds per minute

Muzzle velocity:
731 metres per second (2,400 ft/sec)

From http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm

Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type
M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)
M1918A2 fully automatic
Caliber .30 (30-06)
Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)
Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine
(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines
(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds
(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)
Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)
Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)
Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute
Effective range 550m (600 yds)
Ammunition (1) Ball M2; 150 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
(2) Tracer M25, M1: for designating targets and signalling
(3) Armor piercing M2 (black tip); 165gr/53gr
(4) Armor piercing incendiary: for lightly armored flammable targets

From http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1535

This help?[/quote]

No not really, because you are deliberately giving more detailed information about the BAR compared to the Bren.[/quote]

K well you can get the basics from it…and see that the BAR is slightly better. Plus it looks cooler. Who is winning in the polls BTW??? :smiley:

No one likes your crappy funky looking rabbit terd shooter so …blah.

JK :lol:[/quote]

Well my my my S.A.M. it would appear that the votes have shifted in favor of your crappy funky looking rabbit terd shooter I might have to eat my own words. :smiley: lol

#36

Yes Gen. the Extremely Accurate, easy to control, and reliable weapon HAS taken the lead…

#37

This weapon STG44, known as a worlds first assault rifle, was developed in Hitlers’ Germany during the World War Two. Initial development took place under the designation of MKb.42 - MachinenKarabine, 1942. The experimental MKb’s were developed by two german companies, Karl Walther (MKb.42(W)) and C.G.Haenel (MKb.42(H)). Both guns were intended as a replacement for submachine guns, bolt action rifles and, partly, light machineguns for front troops. Both guns were designed to fire intermediate (between rifle and pistol) cartridge, and have effective range of 600 meters or so. The 7.92mm Kurz cartridge, developed by Polte company, propelled 8.1 g (125 grains) bullet to rougly 680 meters per second.

After initial trials the MKb.42(H), designed by Hugo Schmeisser, was found superior of two, and further development took place under the name of MP-43 (MachinenPistole, 1943, to avoid Hitlers opposition to made anything but SMGs). Some MP-43s were issued to troops at western front, and field reports were very promising. Final version appeared under the designation of Mp-44, and then Hitler finally approved it, but the new gun received also a new designation - SturmGevehr-44, which stands for no more than “Assult Rifle” in german language. This was pure act of propaganda, but the name stuck not only to that gun, but to the whole new class of automatic weapons, designed to fire intermediate cartridges. Total number of MP-43s, MP-44s and StG.44s produced was about 500 000, and these guns proved itself as wery effective, but not withouth some flaws. After end of the war the direct development of the Stg.44 was stopped, but some remained guns were used by East Germany.

The StG.44 is a gas operated, selective fire weapon. The receiver and trigger housing with pistol grip are made from steel stampings. Trigger housing with pistol grip is hinged to the receiver and folds town for disassembly. Gas drive utilises long piston stroke, and bolt is tipped down to lock into the receiver. Gun is fired from the closed bolt (unlike the early Mkb.42(H) which fired from the open bolt). Also, MP-43 and further versions all were hammer-fired, while MKb.42(H) was striker-fired. Charging handle is attached to the gas piston rod, ejection port has a dust cover. Recoil spring is located inside the wooden butt. Handguard were made of stamping.

By the modern standards, the StG.44 was too heavy, it was not too comfortable to fire from prone positions, the butt attachment was not too strong and could be easily damaged in hands-to-hands combat, but it was the FIRST gun of its class, and it was more effective than SMG.

#38

Corrections in this part.
Hugo’s MKb.42 was a AR but fired from open bolt, same way as MP38/40, but got better gas operated mechanism than MKb.42 (W).
After trials Hugo Schmeisser decide take trigger mechnism from MKb.42 (W) (that AR fire with closed bolt, same way as AK) and gas mechanism was changed - form long gas piston stroke to short, safer was changed totally from same with MP38/40 (bolt in backward position, bolt grip into cut in bolt cover) to two position lever safer on left bottom side of pistol grip. Bolt locking mechanism remain unchaged (bolt warp in vertical direction), btw Walther AR got locking mechanism operated by bolt rotation and locking with bolt lugs in fore part of bolt.
But while that changes was in tests C. G. Haenel AG and Carl Walther GmbH continue produce own version and about 2800 MKb 42 (W) and 5200 MKb.42 (H) was produced since february till june of 1943. Since june new Hugo Schmeisser modernised AR due to direct support of minister A. Schpeer was put in mass production as MP 43…

#39

More info on the Bren. I am copying and pasting this here, because i know that if I give you the link, most of you will not bother to read it.

The Bren Light Machine Gun
The Bren Light Machine Gun was the heart of the British section’s firepower during WWII. While it did not have the rate of fire comparable to the German MG34 and MG42, it was lighter and smaller, extremely accurate, reliable, and hard hitting. It has been described as the best light machinegun of the war, and versions of the Bren remain in service to this day with front-line units of armies around the world. This page describes the history and usage of the Bren, using an original training manual and pictures of the club’s fully automatic Bren Mark II.

History of the Bren

In 1922 the British government began a search for a replacement for the Lewis gun, the light machinegun used during WWI. One of the models reviewed was the Czechoslovakian-made ZB-type light machinegun, which began its government trials in 1931. The ZB was accepted into service, and production began at the Enfield factory in 1937. It was given the name “Bren”, which was a combination of the names of the cities where it was produced: Brno, and Enfield. During the war production was also undertaken at Inglis in Canada and Lithgow in Australia, both factories producing rifles and other armaments.

As is customary with British service weapons, the first model produced was designated the Bren Mark I. It was chambered for the same .303 cartridge as used in the Lee Enfield rifles, which meant that ammunition for a section would be standard, and the Bren could be recharged using spare rifle ammunition.

Later in the war the second major model, the Bren Mark II, was produced by the Monotype Group using a number of component-producing factories. Although essentially the same weapon, the Mark II took advantage of a number of wartime efficiencies, making it easier to produce.

In July 1944 the Bren Mark III was approved, and production begun at the Enfield factory. It was a lighter, shortened version of the Mark II, and was intended for use in the South-East Asia theatre. After the war many Brens were converted to the NATO 7.62 (.308) calibre, and continued in British and Commonwealth service.

The Bren used a crescent shaped box magazine that fed from the top of the weapon. While the magazine could hold 30 rounds the training manual recommends loading a maximum of 28 rounds to ensure a proper feed. Just as with the rifle magazines, care must be taken when loading them that the rounds are not “rim-under-rim”, which will keep the weapon from firing.

For use in the anti-aircraft role the Bren could also use a 100-round drum magazine that lay horizontal on top of the receiver. The rate of fire is around 450-550 rounds per minute, comparable to the Sten gun. The effective range of the Bren was considered to be 600 yards, although this could be greatly increased with the use of a specially made tripod. The Bren could be clamped to the tripod and fired in a traditional or anti-aircraft role.

Using the Bren

The Bren was the tactical heart of the British section. The standard section was divided into a three-man ‘Bren’ section and the eight-man ‘rifle’ section. The two groups would use fire and movement to advance the Bren section to the flank of an enemy. Once the Bren had a flanking fire that could pin the enemy, the rifle section was to attack from 10 or 2 o’clock position. The Bren was a very accurate and effective weapon, and could hold its own against the German weapons. Veterans’ stories and histories are replete with mentions of the Bren, showing how clearly it dominated the offensive and defensive thinking of the infantrymen. All men in the infantry section were to be trained on the Bren.

Firing

Normally the Bren section would comprise three men, a lance-corporal in charge, a gunner and an assistant gunner. The assistant gunner would carry a pouch of spare magazines. These were in addition to the two magazines that every man carried in one of their basic pouches (the other carried Mills bombs or mortar rounds). The assistant gunner would normally position himself to the gunner’s left with the spare magazines and a spare barrel. When a magazine was spent the gunner would remove the magazine and slide it under the gun. The assistant would load a new magazine into place with his right hand while retrieving the spent magazine with his left.

the link for more info:http://www.6th-airborne.org/index.html

#40

It appears that tinwalt is expressing his usual ignorance - BREN can’t fire tracer & other ammo types due to the mag shape? wtf? Of course it can! The only external difference visible between a round of ball & other types is that there’s a bit of paint on the tip of the other rounds!

OK, so now to correct some other wpn illiterates around here:

Stg44 is NOT an LMG, it’s an assault rifle. Different role, different type of cartridge, different application, different crewing (ever heard of an assistant gunner on an assault rifle?) You try putting down bursts of suppressing fire with a Stg44 at 3-600 hundred metres (which is the role of an LMG). I’ve fired one full-auto, and the muzzle climb is excessive, and by the third round, the muzzle is significantly higher than when you started.

The top mounted mag on the BREN allows a larger mag to be fitted, and also for the firer to adopt a lower prone position (eg. bipod folded, resting on a sandbag) than is possible with the BAR (such a position is limited in the upwards arc of fire by the mag sticking out the bottom). The top mounted mag also allows the assistant gunner to change mags extremely quickly, which is not possible on the BAR, since it needs to be tilted to the side to allow the assistant gunner to put the next magazine on.

The only things that could remotely be seen as copied from the Stg44 into the AK are the overall layout (which is pretty much common to all box-fed rifles with pistol grips by necessity) and the gas system, and even then, only really the gas tube itself (the tube has ridges so that once the head of the piston has left the gas cylinder it is only in contact with 4 points in the gas tube rather than the whole tube (as it does on e.g. the SIG 550, Garand and many others). This makes it less sensitive to dirt and fouling). The bolt principle is different (carrierless tipping bolt for the Stg, rotating bolt with carrier for the AK), the control layout is totally different (stg has crossbolts for safety & fire selection, AK has that awful single lever on the right hand side, mag release is a thumb button for the stg & the mags push fit, AK uses rock-in mags & has a flap in front of the trigger guard).

The BAR is really rather too light to be a serious LMG, and has no quick-detachable barrel, which is necessary for any level of sustained fire. It’s rather a sort of “machine rifle”, or heavy automatic rifle, in the way that the RPK47, RPK74, or Enfield L86 LSW are. It’s a slightly awkward 1/2 way house between a rifle and an LMG. The bipod-equipped versions were a bit better, but were rather heavy for what they were - a heavy rifle with a limited ammunition capacity, and the forend still caught fire if you put too much sustained fire through it. It was designed for the 1st world war to deliver “walking fire” from the hip when assaulting trenches to keep the heads of the bad guys down, and was forced into the LMG role largely for lack of anything better in the US. A testiment to its lack of success as an LMG is that the US army considered that there was a firepower gap at section level, and stuck a butt & bipod on the M1919 Browning machine gun (making the M1919A6) as an interim solution to give the squad more mobile firepower. If you take the BAR for what it is, it does the job it was designed to do and does it well. However, when trying to force it to act like a rifle or a true LMG, it doesn’t do either brilliantly.

This talk of a higher muzzle velocity counting towards the BAR being better is silly: both the .303" and .30M2 have more than adequate combat ballistics and are both equally good from an LMG, MMG or GPMG. .308" 150gn @ 853m/s vs .311"175gn @ 744m/s is not a huge difference ballistically. From personal experience, however, .30 M2 is a far worse recoiling cartridge than .303" Mk.VII.

A high rate of fire is not also necessarily a good thing - at 550rpm, the BAR mag is emptied in a little over 2 seconds of continuous fire, which is not terribly controllable, or indeed controllable at all without a bipod. The main complaint against the MG42 both in the light (LMG) role and the heavy (MMG) role was its rate of fire. It may have sounded scary, but it munched ammo at an astounding rate.

Tinwalt - you seem to be playing “Top Trumps” between the BAR and the BREN with these stats.

A real test would be to have the BREN and the BAR next to each other on the range, and to have them fire whole mags at a go at a single target each for a minute, with assistant gunners plus all the standard gear. I can guarantee that the BREN will fire far more ammunition and score far more hits (and will have changed barrel once), and the BAR will be a smoking U/S wreck by the end of it, if it makes it that far.

Another point. There are some people here who have a lot of experience with large numbers of different types of firearms, and others who are google experts. The latter should learn from the former, who include Preatorian, Cuts & others.

#41

Comparing the BAR with the BREN I can understand as they were similar types of weapons, but throwing the '44 into the pot is like comparing chalk and cheese. Different tool for a different job.
I’ve fired all three weapons, (sadly only a few hundred rds through the '44s,) and all have their strengths and foibles.

The BAR was first envisaged as being used in ‘marching fire’ for advancing towards the German trenches in WWI.
Held at the hip, it was to fired each time the left foot hit the ground, the idea being that rds on the parapet would keep the enemy’s heads down whilst own troops advanced.
It was soon realised that a base of fire was a superior idea.

It used the standard US service cartridge of the time, the 30-06, although there was the T34, a modification for the 7.62 NATO round, produced about mid 1949 if memory serves me right, but it saw little service.
It isn’t a particularly light weapon, weighing as it does about the same as the BREN, (there are of course small differences in which models are taken for comparison.)
It has the bottom-fed action which restricts the magazine capacity to twenty rds, and when used in it’s intended role as a SAW it definitely needs that bipod !
Most BAR models were selective fire, although the 1918A2 which saw the most use in WWII and Korea, , had two rates of fire in a similar manner to the British Besa.

The BREN, also a gas operated weapon of approximately the same weight, was developed from the ZB26. The characteristic curved magazine was a result of the rimmed cases of the .303 service rounds, the original 26 used 7.92 Mauser. The L4 series were converted or manufactured for 7.62 NATO, using both straight and slightly curved mags.
It had also been designed to be used as a GPMG, with SF mount (in a 1:3 ratio) and quick change barrels.
Although it was magazine fed a good team could keep up a decent volume of fire consistent with that required in the role.
I, my contemporaries, nor any old soldiers we have spoken to have ever felt that the magazine caused any practical limitation of one’s field of view. As two of the old boys carried BRENs in North Africa and up through Italy, pausing for a ‘relaxing’ time at Cassino, I will defer to their experience although it concurs with mine.

I like the BRENs, I’m also very fond of the BARs too, they are all most enjoyable to shoot, but I would lean towards the former should I have to choose between the two for serious use.

#42

Only ever fired the Bren, and only got a few rounds with it, but the mag was never a problem because of the sights being cocked over to one side.

#43

I think you may be thinking of the Vickers K which also used a pan mag.

#44

It’s clear as bright summer day for all there !

I don’t see any reasons why Mp43 find oneself in that poll with LMG …
And why BREN vs BAR M1918 ? Why not BREN vs DP27 or BREN vs MG34 ? Or BREN vs LS 26 Lahti-Soloranta etc… better BREN vs ZB26.

So, MP43/44/StG44 never can be considered as LMG in any kind, as well as scoped MP43(…) newr will be considered as sniper tool.

#45

I think you may be thinking of the Vickers K which also used a pan mag.[/quote]
As well as DP27 - just imagine BREN with 47 rounds in pan mag - same mechanical idea, all pretty equal - excluding magazine and cartridge…

If you’ll got chance someday try that finnish Lahty -Soloranta LMG (if you latey don’t done it)- i can bet you’ll like that gun.

#46

There is DP-27 Disassembly pictures - good way to compare that LMG with BREN part by part…
http://www.gunpics.net/russian/dp27/dp27dis.html

I will be thankfull for any pictures of disassembled BREN on it.

#47

The original DP had the return spring around the barrel, which drew the temper and weakened it, hence the DPM. The 47rd pan mag was also large, difficult to carry, & thus prone to damage. The BREN mags fit in the standard British 37 patt pouches (just), not so the DP pan.

The BREN is certainly superior to the MG34 and MG42 in the light role, but inferior off a tripod. In the light role, there are many advantages to a magazine feed over a belt, such as protection of the ammunition from dirt whilst moving, and not having a belt flapping around on one side of the wpn. The smaller size, lighter weight, and lower rate of fire help this. In a static position when using a tripod, where belted ammo can be used straight from tins, these things are not a problem. The BREN is too light for a proper sustained fire role, and in both these roles the MG34 and 42 are superior, but neither can match a Vickers for sustained fire.

Bren vs VZ26 is not really a comparison, since they are almost identical (there was even a 7.92mm version of the BREN produced in Canada for the Chinese).

The Japanese had several LMGs but most of these were plagued with problems which required lubrication of cases.

#48

DP 27 NEVER had any springs around barrel - but under barrel had.

MG34 can be used with 50 rounds belt on spoole inside round case and with special adaptor also can be feed from 75 round mag (same with MG15).
So, no dirt or flapping belt…

about 2 kg difference in weight and BREN’s 600 spm (or 500 ? few sorces-few numbers) against MG34 900 spm technical rate of fire. Practical rate of fire for MG34 - 100-120 spm by short 3-5 rounds bursts (300-350 for tripod mounted MG34).
Wich practical rate of fire had BREN i don’t know.

It was joke - about ZB26 and BREN. :wink:
And all japan’s LMG - real weapon’s nightnmare… even japan’s version of BREN (they used it as paratroopers weapon).

#49

sorry, yes, under barrel, not around.

The belt trommel does solve the flapping belt problem, but is not exactly easy to carry in pouches!

Having handled the MG34, I can say that it’s effing heavy - far too heavy for the LMG role (that’s always the case with GPMGs though - a bit too heavy for the LMG role, a bit light for the MMG role).

#50

The MP44 is the best. Mikahail Klashnikov made his prototype AKM in 1947 based on the MP44. The two guns are very similar externally, but the internal mechinisms between the AK and the MP44 are very different. But the MP44 is still the best.

#51

err, the AKM is a modernised AK47 & appeared in the 1960s. And the prototype AK47s were built in 1946.

You can’t really say which of the 3 were better, since 2 are LMGs, the other is an assault rifle - it’s like comparing apples with bananas.

Now, mr. PzKpfw, you’ve been a very prolific poster in the few days since you’ve joined, and have been posting a large quantity of material which is in factual error. I suggest at least that you consult http://world.guns.ru or Wikipedia before you post anything further concerning weapons.

I would also suggest that you acquire & read the following books, which will give you a good grounding in small-arms up to about 1960:

Smith & Smith Small Arms of the World
J. Hatcher Hatcher’s Notebook
Jane’s Guns recognition guide is a bit crap, but is also useful, and does come vaguely up-to-date.

#52

The BAR an LMG? Not what Ive heard. It was a squad support weapon, as with the Bren ,which was an LMG. It is true that it may be difficult in comparing apples with bananas, but you can still say which is the nicer fruit. And well I guess that is opinion, a more realistic one in this context would be to say “Which one was harder?”. So I must defend myself, because it was I who made this little debate. I know they had differant roles, and were mechanically different(or whatever). But once again, which do you feel achieves the most in the heat of battle.

If you would like to make a debate about weapons from the WW2 period it would go something like this. You will have to compare the rifles, so that would be the nosin nagnat, Lee enfield, Kar 98, and you could even include the M1 Garand, and the semi automatic rifles of Russia and Germany (I forgot their names). Compare Sniper rifles, and submachine guns, and then there is this catagory: MP44, Bren LMG, BAR. Each country had its own idea of what is needed in this catagory for war. Germany came up with an assualt rifle, Britain its LMG, and America the BAR.

So that was what I was thinking when I made this debate.

#53

thank you for bringing that to my attention, I get the AKs mixed up alot… and i do use Wikipedia alot for gun facts and stats and stuff.

#54

Such tests were carried out at Hythe, between 1930 and 1933, when the British Army was looking for a replacement of the Lewis LMG.
Contenders were:
Browning .303 LMG (improved BARs), one original design and an improved (S of D) design.
Darne LMG (7.92 Mauser)
Vickers-Berthier LMG (.303)
Kiralyi-Ende 7 LMG (7.92 Mauser)
ZB27 LMG, of which the Bren later derived in 7.92 Mauser, brought to the attention of the testing staff by the British military attache in Praque, Czech Republic
Madsen .303 LMG

After the first trials, the Kiralyi and the Browning were ruled out, the Kiralyi due to mechanical problem and unreliability and the Browning due to (from the original test report):
"…
b. Trials of the American Browning light machine gun need not to proceed further as this pattern has been superseeded by the type as modified by S of D.
c. The S of D Browning is not considered worthy of further trials owing to its unsuitability for sustained fire by reason of its barrel and feed arrangement, and further that the time which must necessarily elapse before these guns could be provided would not justify the additional delay.
…
The guns recommended for further trials are the following:

Vickers-Berthier.
“ZB"27 (if modified to take the .303 Mark VII cartridge).
Madsen.
…”

The Darne was excluded in the beginning of the trials because it was not magazine fed as per specifications, but belt fed.

During further trials, the Czech manufacturers promptly adressed recommendations by the British Army staff and finally won the competition.

Jan