In BGTU, Kalashnikov made a some lections for us, students. He told about creations of his gun. He hadn’t enough education to make production schemes. He only painted the gun, which he wanted to have. Painted! After he painted them in any aspects, he made a wooden model of it, and send it to weapon researchers. And he was invited to build that in metal. He wasn’t take any type of gun for base. That was only a gun of his dream…
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??? 
No one likes your crappy funky looking rabbit terd shooter so …blah.
JK :lol:[/quote]
yes, yes, yes I know the BAR is kicking the crap out of the Bren on the polls but thats your opinion. What I have read and learnt, I would still go into battle with my highly accurate reliable, and sturdy weapon.
No, the MP44 could not possibly have been the inspiration for the AK-47! Nonesence!
I agree with the majority of the pollers and prefer the Bar to the Bren also. It had simpler sights, was very accurate (30.06 round of the M1 famously accurate Garande), lighter, did not need a bipod, and had an underside magazine that did not obstruct the vision.
No, the MP44 could not possibly have been the inspiration for the AK-47! Nonesence!
I agree with the majority of the pollers and prefer the Bar to the Bren also. It had simpler sights, was very accurate (30.06 round of the M1 famously accurate Garande), lighter, did not need a bipod, and had an underside magazine that did not obstruct the vision.[/quote]
To clear something up: The Bren was much more accurate than the BAR. The Bren did not need a bipod, but of course if the enemy is a few hundred yards away you would use the bipod because you would have better accuracy. And the magazine on top of the Bren didnt really obstruct vision. The sites were slightly to the side.
The Bren was a fine machine, however:
The BAR had a considerably higher muzzle velocity and used the same barrel design and round as the M1 Garand - one of the most accurate semiautomatic military rifles in history. The only small arms of WWII that were more accurate than either an M1 Garand or BAR were bolt action rifles.
On top-feed machine guns, the magazine can obstruct the vision when firing by sight-line. This is why side-feed or botton-feed designs were adopted universally by every nation prior to WWII, and virtually every subsequent MG (light or full) from WWI onward used a side or bottom feed. Examples are the Villar Perosa, and the German Madsen, for which production was ceased once realizing this design was inferior.
“The original BRNO weapons were also in 7.92mm, then the British altered them to use the .303 British Mk VII cartridge and a curved magazine to accomodate the rimmed cartridge. This was a curse and a source of feed checks and annoyance for soldiers who used them when the flanged rims on the .303 cartridges got into the wrong position overlapping behind the next cartridge in the magazine.”
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/bren.htm
Muzzle Velocity
BAR - 853.4 mps
BREN - 743.71 mps
Weight
BAR - 8.33 kg
BREN - 10.15 kg
Rate of Fire
BAR - 550 rpm
BREN - 500-520 rpm
Effective Range
BAR - 550m
BREN - 550m
The BAR could also fire tracer, armour piercing, and incendiary rounds, which were unsuitable in the Bren because of it’s curved magazine.
I’d take the Bren bacause I have fired the 7.62 version which served in the British armed forces till the early 1990’s Very accurate and the magazine hardly obscured your vision to be honest it was fireable from the hip if required, The bipod being there so that it could be used as a section support weapon.If you have ever used these sort of weapons then you’ll be aware that the bottom mounted magazine can get in the way when Prone. It also looks the coolest
On top monted magazines the Lewis Gun featured one and was a very succesful weapon particularly favoured by the SAS for mounting on vehicles.
Look at it:
StG44 top, AK 46 bottom:
Questions ? Can you see any difference ? Really ?
AK 46 was a REALLY “designed” by Kalashnikov… but there were Bulkin, weapon designer, who disigned that gun:
Bulkin 46 top and AK 47 buttom
That gun, Bulkin 46 was one of guns, presented in 1946 for concours with AK 46. But Bulkin personally wasn’t good enough, he was a good designer, but bad ass-kisser. So, year later - AK 47, “brand new Kalashnicov’s gun”. Ta-dam !
Totally redesigned, absolutelly redesigned, with another idea about construction… can you belive in it ? I can’t.
And no Bulkin, who is it Bulkin ? And who is it Hugo Shmeisser ?
Is it result of sovietic intrigues. Was Bulkin, but become a Kalashnikov…
Questions ?
For somebody, who like look what Kalashnikov really “maked” a bit later:
PPK (Kalashnikov’s SMG) and Tommy gun…
Good copier, i see. But what about designer ?
Well the Soviets commonly built “Copies” of Western equipment whether under licence or not.
C-47,B-29 and others if you search.
Usually.
But not allways.
SVT 38/40 and AVS was originally designed by Tokarev (most talented russian/soviet weapon designer) and Simonov. Simonov also designed SKS-45, famous self loader.
I can be sure only in weapons, cars and helycopters, things where i know a lot.
I can’t say nothing about tanks of airplanes. Sure, Li 2 was an licensed copy of DC-3/C-47, B-29 was copied without any license… same story with 4x4 truck such as International Harwester that in soviet copy named ZiL 157…
That was a oficial look at relations with other countres - yes, we do it, copied that thing and what we gonna do with it ?
Sometimes we paid for license, as happend with early jet-engines for MiG-15, sometimes - don’t…
Hey, USSR wasn’t normal country, don’t look at it like country common with GB or USA - remember, goverment was a commys, they lookt at all as way to gain power over whole Earth, don’t forget it.
And “equipment”… huh… with equipment we traditionally hawe own look… Russian Army got something like comfortable uniform, usuable in real battle just after we start occupation of Afganistan… but boats… oh, is it was a pice of s**t… Same story with police - you cant imagine how uncomfortable was a old police uniform. Yes, you can use it only if you sitting in office. But it you workin on the streets… problem was with holster, for example - it you hang holster at belt - you got problems, if you wear holster under coat - you got problems… In winter time holster freezed so you cant open your holster and take out your gun…
I can tipe a lot about equipment, but is it another story and another topic.
The above is from all but 2 of your posts in this thread.
Why didn’t you simply start a thread called, “A poll for the Bar vrs the Bren, but I like the Bren more so you have to like it more too, I insist.”?
This has been the source of several arguments on the forum. Every time someone states an opinion that is different from your own, you restate your opinion AND say something negative about the other choices. You are the only person here who has stated their opinion on the weapon of their choice more than once, and behind every post which states a different opinion.
Let others express their opinions without chasing thier posts with an attempt to control the outcome of the poll.
I didn’t say that the Russians copied every thing they had, Far from it they had a thriving (unknown to the West) Aircraft and tank industry and had some great designs such as the T-34 and the IL-2 purely for examples. So I was not belittling their efforts I don’t think they had to pay for licences anyway since they were not part of any signed agreement and so could what they wanted.
lol i would of said the garand…
i like the bar, but i think the bren was nicer 
not to sure about their power/accuracy and such
To answer your curiosity about their power…
The BAR was more powerful than the BREN. The BAR had a higher rate of fire when used in fully-automatic mode, and the BAR used the same ammo as the M1 Garand - 30.06, and the BREN used .303. Both weapons were quite accurate when used as semi-automatic mode rifles.
prefer the bar.
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???
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. lol
Yes Gen. the Extremely Accurate, easy to control, and reliable weapon HAS taken the lead…
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.
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…
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
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.