Want to play He-Man shooting a BAR from the shoulder? This one has been built for just that purpose. It’s chambered in 7x57mm for reduced recoil, has a 21” barrel to improve handling, a custom lengthened pistol grip, safe-semi-full trigger group, good early M1918 pattern sights, and Bren Gun tripod mounting brackets for when you get tired. A neat example of a customized beast of an automatic rifle!
For a while now I’ve been following the rabbit hole of machine gun use in the second half of the 19th century – the days of the manually-operated machine gun (Gatling, Gardner, Nordenfelt, etc) and […]
Today we have a chance to take one of the reproduction China Lake 40mm grenade launchers out to the range! We are using practice chalk rounds…let’s see how it goes! Only a handful of these […]
James Paris Lee was a firearms designer whose inventions had a far greater historical significance than even most firearms enthusiasts realize. Where Lee is recognized at all, it is generally for the rifles that bear […]
© 2024 Forgotten Weapons.
Site developed by Cardinal Acres Web Development.
Someone had a good time with this. If only it weren’t so difficult to have someone design it from the start (sarcasm).
If I’m not mistaken, the postwar FN-D (the BAR with detachable quick-change barrel and pistol grip) was made in 7 x 57, I believe for Venezuela and perhaps other former Spanish colonies. I know from experience that a 7 x 57 Mauser is much more pleasant to shoot that a .30-06 Springfield; seems like this would be amplified in a shoulder-fired full-auto.
When I first saw it, I thought it was an FN Model 30 aka Model D due to the pistol grip. FN made their version of the BAR in several calibers, .30-06, 7.9 x 57, 7.65 x 53, 6.5 x 55 and, yes, 7 x 57. They’d make it in whatever caliber a customer desired.
Model 30/D BARs had a shorter pistol grip, like the Colt Monitor, but more importantly they were the only production BARs with quick-change barrels, like a ZB/Bren. Hence they were the only BARs capable of the same degree of sustained fire as a Bren. Many of them also had a Cutts Compensator-type muzzle brake/flash hider, again like the Colt version. This probably went a ways toward reducing the rather exuberant recoil of a .30-06 or 7.9 x 57 example on Auto.
Since most of the cartridges used the same bolt face and even the same magazines, theoretically, at least, you could have one Model 30 with barrels in any or all of the calibers, and switch them depending on the local ammunition availability. (The ideal rifle for Indiana Jones, actually.)
As for the 7 x 57 round, all the “intermediate” cartridges in .276 and etc. developed in the last century, up to and including the modern 6.8 SPC, essentially are ballistic duplicates of the 7 x 57. Some of them are even near-duplicates of its case dimensions and profile.
I’ve often wondered when everybody trying to come up with the “ultimate intermediate cartridge” for military use will stop trying to re-invent the wheel and realize that DWM got it right the first time in 1892.
cheers
eon
The problem is that the politically-minded guys responsible for arms procurement will dismiss the 7×57 as “ancient history not applicable to modern warfare.” Who uses “deer hunting ammunition” on humans? Technically any soldier will do that, except he shouldn’t use hollow point bullets… and no need for me to reference the Kennedy shots for small caliber nastiness!
“problem is that the politically-minded guys responsible for arms procurement will dismiss the 7×57”
In fact, there exist limitations of 7×57 which are purely technical. Most obvious it is relatively big mass compared to ballistic. Although able to compete with more modern options in terms of pure ballistic, it is weaker in effectiveness (reach similar ballistic but with weight penalty). This is effect of geometry of cartridge and material used for case (or to be more precise density of that material).
In term of overall mass of single cartridge 7×57 is comparable with 7.62×51 NATO. It does not have significant enough ballistic advantage over 7.62×51 to grant its introduction for world-wide military service.
“Model 30/D BARs had a shorter pistol grip, like the Colt Monitor, but more importantly they were the only production BARs with quick-change barrels”
Wait, what about Kg m/1937?
https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/sweden-machineguns/kg-m21-m37-eng/
” .30-06, 7.9 x 57, 7.65 x 53, 6.5 x 55 and, yes, 7 x 57″
Kg m/1921 (also described in link above) used 6.5 x 55 cartridge, which should together with moderate Rate-of-Fire equal to 500 rpm, make it relatively easy to control in full-auto.
“As for the 7 x 57 round, all the “intermediate” cartridges in .276 and etc. developed in the last century, up to and including the modern 6.8 SPC, essentially are ballistic duplicates of the 7 x 57. Some of them are even near-duplicates of its case dimensions and profile. ”
Case dimensions, which one?
7 x 57 is just long (~ 78 mm overall) for ballistic it deliver compared to more modern solutions. For comparison 6.8 SPC: ~ 57 mm. This has following consequence: it is easier to craft automatic weapon with greater Rate-of-Fire for 6.8 SPC than 7 x 57.
Also comparison of mass of single cartridge look favorable for 6.8 according to
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/09/how-much-does-your-ammunition-weigh/
one 7×57 weights 0.856
one 6.8×43 weights 0.621 (heaviest sample of all 6.8×43, described HORNADY)
this mean you could bring 37.8% of 6.8 cartridge for same overall mass
Now, I checked 7×57 is even heavier than 7.62×51 NATO, French which weights 0.836
I looked recently at video by Hickok45 shooting BAR. To my surprise, he being a man of age, was shooting it standing and in bursts. Admittedly, the gun is heavy (and he mentioned that in video) enough to allow this. In any case, this was a masterpiece by J. Browning.
It helps that Hickock45 is 6’8″ tall.
” In any case, this was a masterpiece by J. Browning.”
In original (Great War-era) form BAR might be described as assault rifle but without intermediate cartridge. Later attempts on converting it to light-machine gun ended in limited success. One of reasons was fixed barrel (not quick-change feature) other was it magazine placement – as it sticked downwards it was harder to change for 2-man crew in comparison to Madsen for example, also it had limited magazine capacity for light-machine gun.
I could be mistaken but I believe to selector on the BAR to be slow “A” and fast “F”. Not semi. A function check would determine this.
I don’t have ability to examine this carefully now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVzWu1CqGf4
but I think it might contain answer.
According to older topic about BAR https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m1918-bar-americas-walking-fire-assault-rifle/
post by Jim Kelly at October 14, 2017 at 7:29 am:
(S was for safe), the ( F was for fast) and the (A was for awful fast)
I believe it was built by Pat T., a good friend of Dolf’s and mine who now lives in Calif.