What was its purpose?
It existed solely so you could post this thread someday, and prove to the modern world that you indeed are a faggot.
>>29286208
Walking fire for true men with grit and balls of steel.
the war before the one it was mainly deployed in.
to shoot baddies
For girls who didn't want to manhandle an M1919
It was terrible but it was what they had at the time
Pretty sure the BAR was the reason talking guns was developed
>>29286208
To look sexy.
>>29286208
It was design to give a rifle squad the firepower of a machine gun.
>>29286208
To be used as an Automatic rifle, as the name suggests.
To kill
Shooting off nips limbs
>>29286208
What kind of retarded question is this? It was the first SAW.
why was the magazine so small?
that is the real question.
>>29286208
To provide a viable .45 alternative to the Assault Rifle
To provide a mobile source of accurate suppressive fire.
>>29286208
What is the purpose of this thread?
>>29286208
Suppression.
>>29286400
I second this. What did it have, like 15 rounds?
>>29286627
Twenty.
>>29286227
>20 rounds
>20 fucking rounds
LaughingBritishman.jpg
>>29286627
Actually, it wasn't for suppression, as time went on people started figuring out that was the proper tactic for single man machine guns though. It had 20 rounds cuz it was already heavy as fucking shit, and was made ideally to burst fire as you walked directly towards an enemy trench.
Why was it bad?
>>29286696
Heavy, and it used the wrong tactics. By the time people figured out the proper tactics for it, was even heavier, and now outdated.
>>29286416
War never changes.
>>29286664
laughing at how inept britbongs were during WW2?
>>29286208
> TFW no modern redesign with better materials
It's so pretty, butt fuck me if I'm about to go around humping a 16-pound rifle innawoods.
>>29286755
This, I'd love a colt monitor or Clyde's scattergun tho.
>>29286755
There's the Ohio Ordinance one, but it's one of the most expensive novelties out there.
>>29286208
to be an automatic rifle that fired a big round
>>29286208
To kill
>>29286768
> 4 grando
> for a three zero dash zero six semi automatical rifle
That thing better shit gold and suck dick like my grandma for that price. It's pretty, but so's the Queen and she only charges a tenner.
>>29286814
I wish they still made 30-06 battle rifles.
Or made new battle rifles.
...that weren't 2 and a half months earning for me
>>29286827
>I wish they still made 30-06 battle rifles
>Or made new decent battle rifles
>....that weren't 2 and half months earnings for me
Ftfy
>>29286827
There's always pic related if you don't mind buying fudd.
>>29287466
Have one in .338 wm, dad has matching in .300 wm
we're pretty cute I know
>>29286208
killing chinks dead good
>>29287466
Are they any good?
Do they make bigger mags for them?
bragging here
shot one, it was cool but fucking awful. heavy as fuck and still kicks like a mule. 0/10 would not carry
To kill Krauts and Japs.
>>29287671
Shit aftermarket, little in the way of larger magazine options as far as I'm aware.
The only sources I can come up with on how good they are as guns are from old fudds who only shoot maybe a box a year.
>>29287466
Do extendo banana clips exist for it? This is non-negotiable.
>>29287782
I've seen 10 rounders. No idea about bigger ones.
There's tons of autoloading rifles in fudd calibers out there. I know Remington makes a few. I just have no idea what to expect with them.
There was a guy that (briefly) made upscaled AR-15s in 30-06 that took BAR magazines.
>>29287900
MCR-300, that's the proper name.
>>29287780
I'm almost about to consider building a battle rifle myself. They just don't have what I want. I'm sure I could nigger rig something decently
>>29287900
Only 100 ever made. Apparently the company that produced them strove for 0.5 MOA at 300 yards.
>>29287852
But I want 30-06 FULL FUDDED HIGHKAP XLIPS
>>29287930
>Son, you must be a poor shot if you need more than a four round clip.
Been looking around for a while now and literally all I can find are discontinued 10 rounders with bizzare, not-designed-to-be-carried-in-a-pouch floorplates and custom one-offs.
>>29287954
How hard is it to make mags anyway. Especially straight ones? Some metal, some table edges, bend it pound it. Viola! You have metal box. Put in a spring from a normal PTR91 mag, maybe two, and take the follower from the fudd 4 shot qwikclip.
Am I right or what?
It's salt drums that'd be the real bitch.
>>29287965
Hardest part is the follower and the feed lips. Can't really do that with a hammer and expect reliable results. Would probably be easier to nigger rig a rifle to take pre-existing magazines.
>>29286702
The marines had the right tactic for it, one BAR and 3 Garands to a section, 3 sections to a squad with the squad leader toting an M1 Carbine.
A mid-late war marine squad could get fire advantage over any of it's contemporary equivalents.
>>29287978
Use the fudd4rounder as a "top part" of a long magazine body welded under it? PTR springs still?
>>29287900
noreen makes a .30-06 ar. heard they had qc issues though. no idea about the most recent generation
>>29288106
I feel this, but with a 30-06's brass instead of a .308's would make a healluva sub round.
This would be one snowflake of a build though, and you'd be doing all the reloading.
Haven't found the perfect bullet yet either. Maybe .416 Barret. Maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMvvTIKZsZ4
>>29286208
To look really cool
This was build off the bar design scaled down to .308
Still heavy as shit. but I love it.
>>29286664
>bren gun 30 rounds
>30 fucking rounds
LaughingGermanman.jpg
>>29288182
> more than 1 per squad.
Laughingbritsandmarines.png
>>29286305
THE BAYENET
>>29288182
Yeah, can't really bad mouth the bren, it was an objectively good LMG, far better than the BAR.
>>29286792
I fucking knew that he'd become a reaction image.
That video was pretty funny overall.
'Blyat! Where is the tank?'
'Its left sergei, left!'
'WHERE IS THE TANK?!'
'LEFT SERGEI, LEFT, LEFT, LEFT, FIRE!!'
>>29288160
Thats is a swedish FN BAR and that is a million times more user friendly than the US version
>>29288293
Wrong.
>>29286261
This
>>29286768
>doesn't fire from an open bolt
significantly redesigned, and as such, total crap. It's not even a semi-auto BAR.
>>29287852
probably something fragile like an 1100 or 1187, expect it to have like a rubber O-ring that melts if you shoot enough to get it hot
or something equally as silly
>>29288150
hooly shit, my erection!
that's pretty awesome, imagine that big fucking heavy bullet sub-sonic with all that powder behind it.
mmm
>>29288150
mmm muh dik
>ballistic equivalent to a super-sonic 5.56x45 or better
>sub-sonic and quiet as fuck
>but the ammo is heavy
>>29286208
Only so we could make that "3 nazis walk into a BAR" joke.
>>29286208
shoot niggers dead
>>29288037
Again, by this time it was outdated. Japs just had shitsheen guns.
i really like the gun
even though it's heavy as shit and kicks like a mule on viagra
>>29286208
I'm going to guess that it's purpose was to shoot projectiles out of the pointy end at people who you didn't like.
Though I might be really wrong.
>>29286208
as always, the answer is simple. more dakka
>>29286664
>Comparing an automatic rifle with a LMG.
Dude...
"yes rifles are nice, but can we make it shoot more things faster"
>>29288306
got a link to that video?
sounds humorous
>>29288492
A squad of marines in 43/44 would have bulldozed a standard German MG42 squad.
> Every fireteam has good firepower, instead of the MG42 and a bunch of guys with bolt actions
> Squad isn't useless if the machine gunner is dead, suppressed, or has to move.
> Squad is able to put fire on multiple targets and prevent itself from being flanked.
>>29288758
>A squad of marines in 43/44 would have bulldozed a standard German MG42 squad.
Fair points on all, but really that just backs up the point that it was outdated. The Garand was quite the right choice, semiautomatic vs bolt actions was a strong step up. The BAR didn't bring anything particularly useful to the table though, especially not something a proper MG of the time could do.
>>29288390
Oh, sorry I didn't realise, please, do elaborate?
I'd love to hear how the bren was worse than the BAR as an LMG.
>>29288715
It's in the war footage thread, in the first 10 replies.
>>29286277
>M1919
>not the Stinger
Silly manlets.
>>29288862
It did bring in the the modern fireteam concept into a live fire environment. It was dated as it was for WW1 but it did allow much more aggressive movement of automatic fire, though the Thompson and Grease gun filled that roll better. a proper MG took a crew of 2 at minimum, typically 3 for all sides in the war (Gunner, and 2 carriers if I recall)
>>29289190
Wasn't the, only, guy any of us know used this operationally a shorty? I mean alot of war heroes are shorties, Audie Murphy for instance.
I guess I'm saying I don't think you gotta be big to carry big, 6'4" here.
Blessed guns are the true man made equalizer.
>What was its purpose?
To be sexy as charged.
I've seen it said on documentary sources more than once that many just used it like a semi-auto essentially; that is I mean they took deliberate single shots, just really taking advantage of the magazine size more than the automatic fire.
What say you /k/?
Can you even buy BAR magazines if you wanted to operate with a closed-bolt semi-repro, operationally?
>>29286755
> TFW no modern redesign with better materials
au contraire monfraire
Check out Ohio Ordinance Works H.C.A.R.
>>29289406
true. I'm 5'8 and 175lbs and LMG man
>>29289385
No, an MG squad was two for pretty much all sides (one loader/spotter and one gunner). Carrying ammunition is another facet entirely and isn't really relevant.
>>29289385
It was ahead of its time in WW1, WW2 it DID bring in some good concepts, the problem was it just didn't have the firepower of a true MG. It was still just an automatic rifle, a jack of trades that kinda fell flat. In Korea it was completely outdated.
>>29289499
Nazi infantry doctrine was based heavily around the MG, One carried and fired, one carried the tripod, 3 others carrying spare barrels (which are absolutely needed) tools and ammo, and then the squad leader.
>>29288150
Feeling it.
>>29289521
i think hes talking about a mg in an infantry squad (as in not a "mg section") which would not have a tripod and no more than gunner+loader
>>29289499
Eah, late war when air-cooled was more common, true. Early on waterjackets were still common necessitating 3 members. I would need to dig around in free-time to vet though.
>>29289646
You don't understand, the rifleman in Nazi doctrine supported the MG, not the other way around. The infantry squad was the MG squad.
>>29289646
(didn't catch your comment so adding on p.s.)
I was talking MGs in general, even LMGs were separate from infantry squad/sections, it's also why the BAR was in a weird designation, not enough ammo to be used as an MG, think the RoF was lowered to help muzzleclimb. It was an 'almost' assault rifle that was suited to adding a suppressive fire capacity to the normal rifle sections(in addition to the Garand's semi-automatic nature). It worked well enough in it's role, but was certainly not ideal. I think the FG42 would be a close analog in many respects, but ultimately the Bren was likely the best of the 3 (not accounting all the obscurs like the Finns Poles and Russian counterparts)
>>29289686
It was a battle rifle by today's standards.
>>29286208
Arm workouts
>>29288150
What about .408 Cheytac?
I can't find .416 bullets in anything other than solid brass or copper or whatever. No normal lead rounds.
>>29286208
>too light to be good squad support weapon
>too heavy to be used as regular rifle
>too small a magazine for extended fire
>just perfect for being shitty to mediocre at best at everything
That's the BAR
>>29289521
>Nazi infantry doctrine was based heavily around the MG
Who else thinks this was retarded as a strategy?
>>29289781
Considering modern infantry doctrine is still heavily based around the MG, nobody with sense.
>>29289854
I mainly mean retarded in the sense that it's an excuse to delay development of a better infantry rifle.
I know small arms don't win wars necessarily, but to not have a semi auto by WWII is just willfully choosing not to have one.
>>29289854
We have the opposite idea. The modern doctrine, the machine gun supports the infantry, typically by suppressing the enemy so they can assault/advance/whatever. German doctrine was that the infantry were just there to keep the machine gun crew safe and supplied so thry could kill everything.
>>29289884
It's not really any different, the machine gun is still the most casualty producing weapon and is integral to the operations of dismounted infantry.
Without machine gun teams an infantry platoon is fucked in a conventional fight.
>>29289884
>German doctrine was that the infantry were just there to keep the machine gun crew safe and supplied so they could kill everything.
seeing as this tactic worked brilliantly in WW1, i cant blame them
>>29289902
>still the most casualty producing weapon
Not really. It can be, but the gist of modern tactics is that it makes them either get in cover so it doesn't kill them, then keep them there until something else kills them.
>>29289884
This is what I mean.
>>29289902
The difference being Germans using them in a purposefully offensive sense, rather than defending the movements of infantrymen on the attack.
>>29289917
Static defense is hella different than offensive movement.
>>29289917
Seeing as the tactic worked brilliantly in both world wars, you shouldn't.
>>29286208
To drown Burgers.
>>29286208
>What was its purpose?
Boy you sure are retarded- pic related
>>29289746
>No normal lead rounds
Already found some days ago, take my word for it or throw a fit here and I'll find it again.
They were "hot cast" or something; copper jackets that they say they just pour the molten lead into, seemed neat.
>>29289884
>German doctrine was that the infantry were just there to keep the machine gun crew safe and supplied so thry could kill everything
That's awesome.
>>29289920
But MGs of all types have been the biggest killers of all handheld weapons for the last few wars also.
Maybe the germans were onto something, or maybe we're regressing.
>Tfw no cut down BAR
>>29289461
The HCAR looks disgusting though.
>>29286208
Originally it was to kill a lot of Germans in a trench (even though they had a pump action shotgun and a Thompson submachine gun) in ww1. TheN in ww2 they used it as a light machine gun even though the m1919 and m2 existed.
Basically it was obsolete ever since it's inception.
>>29289902
It is drastically different because in the German doctrine, the MG team did not maneuver with the riflemen, but took turns. The time gap when the MG team needs to move creates a pretty big vulnerability where the squad did not have anyone with automatic or even semi-automatic firepower besides the squad leader's MP-40 if he had one.
Almost all modern armies have multiple LMG's per squad, and every fireteam/section has an LMG gunner with them. This is what the Brits and Marines did.
>>29286664
This was World war one
WORLD WAR FUCKING ONE.
20 rounds of automatic fire from one man was insane back then.
More like cryingbritishman.jpg
>>29291727
They also had sub machine guns but yeah 20 rounds of fully automatic rifle fire was pretty amazing 100 years ago
>>29288348
No it's not, none of the Swedish BARs were made at FN, they were either bought from Colt or made under license at Carl Gustafs stads gevärsfaktori.
>>29286827
7.62 NATO or .308 is basically identical to 30-06, right?
>>29291852
7.62 NATO was designed to mimic .30-06 M2 Ball loads, just in a shortened case
>>29291844
>mfw I didn't even know we had BARs in Sweden.
>>29289978
Fucking loved this scene
>Weapons jammed, schieße!
>EAT HELMET SCHWEINEHUND
>>29287466
I like Browning firearms, whatever they do to blue them it works like magic.
>>29286664
>Insulting one of best American Automatic Rifle
>Pointing out 20 rounds
Well aren't you a britbong fag, that rifle won ww1 and ww2 you moron, even it means 20 round mags.
ClappingAmerican.jpg
>>29291887
Plenty of gats my man
>>29292619
>Skjut mig då
Probably grade A ghetto trash.
>>29291754
>They also had submachine guns
Not the brits and the Americans didn't have submachine guns in WWI. The thompson wasn't designed until 1918
>>29286664
>biggest gun you might have ever fired was your grandad's .410 shotgun
>like you could even handle full auto 30-06 coming out of a 20 lbs steel log
Seriously, britbongs have 0 experience when it comes to firearms. Don't talk out of your ass son. You're stinking up the thread.
>>29291721
Panzergrenadier squads utilized two MG42s - in addition to their halftrack's (if they had one) shielded MG by the midwar, and regular Grenadiers could expect a pair by early 45. This was kind of in response to US Army rifle squads fielding a pair of BARs themselves by late 44. An interesting back-and-forth struggle for organizational-table superiority that was.
>>29292409
Nice problem solvers.
>>29293237
For some reason it's my thing. RPN/RPL master race reporting in.
>>29286329
But that's not true.
>>29287589
Then why'd they lose?
>>29288165
No dumbass its based off the FN BAR aka the semi auto hunting rifle.
>>29291727
The British did have the Lewis gun.
>>29291640
If it didn't have that atrocious rails though and they flattened the top....it would be sexy as fuck.
Also I wish they made a belt fed model like the swedes with the same modern material.
Instant boner.
>>29293530
I agree. It's the rails that ruin the HCAR.
>>29286208
TO ROB BANKS YA SEE
WHY I OUGHTTA
>>29293628
Pic fucking related
>>29293470
Calculators are cool.
We're all in agreement that the modifications made to BAR between WW1 and WW2 were poor, yeah?
What would some good modifications to the design have been?
>>29294218
Basically what the Poles did with the Wz. 28.
>>29289461
> classic sensibilities replaced with hollow stock, weird scaffolded appearance, terrible lines
I said modern redesign, not post-modern artbortion. I just want fucking alloys and polymers. Not tesla coils and the reanimated bodies of forgotten guns.
>>29293640
> a second BAR because fuck you that's why, see, nyeeeaaahhh
>>29294396
Swedish version was good too.
>>29294615
They dropped the weight by half though.
>>29293530
>>29293560
Could someone shoop one without the rail?
>>29287466
I have an original Belgian mk1 in 30-06
Great gun except for the non chromed gas piston seizing up due to my grandpa oiling it to balls.
>>29294615
>I just want fucking alloys and polymers. Not tesla coils and the reanimated bodies of forgotten guns
This fucker gets it.
>>29286208
It was intended as a stationary gun for trench warfare that could be fired prone from a bi-pod accurately at long range and which could in a pinch be picked up and used at close range in the trench. Its heavy as fuck; but in trench warfare that's not a big issue since you'll be lucky if you can advance a mile in a month.
By WWII it was obsolete; but we had them and it fired 30-06 so we used them.
>>29296405
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the concept of "walking fire" which was a WWI idea where you'd march towards the enemy while providing suppressive fire. Its a dumb idea of course since suppressive fire is best provided from cover; but this shit was new in WWI and they hadn't really figured out how to take advantage of a gun like the BAR.
>>29287466
>>29295036
If you got it in 30-06 would it take BAR mags?
>>29289978
those guys wouldve been homies if not for the war
>>29292589
>certain gun won ww1 and ww2
Americans, never change.
>>29296757
My grandpa's best friend was a German soldier who immigrated after the war. Never fought directly or anything, so no big dramatic movie shit, but it was still really cool.
They used to compare stories about officers and shit, and my grandpa always told us to never think less of a man because he fought for his country.
Feels and shit were had.
To replace slants with circles
>>29292692
There were Tommy guns waiting to be unloaded at at least one allied dock during WWI. Some were probably used, but nothing in any important numbers. The BAR probably saw more service.
>>29296492
What's it weigh?
>>29297033
Little more than a prius, from the look of it.
>>29297055
>Little more than a prius
So middling weight for a good corn fed patriot.
>>29296492
>>29297033
>>29297055
Looks like the heaviest Garand was still lighter than the lightest BAR. That's interesting.
So why would this be a bad idea?
>>29294218
>>29296492
>>29297114
>So why would this be a bad idea?
Its not.
John Garand originally designed his rifle to take detachable magazines and use a smaller intermediate cartridge more akin to a modern assault rifle.
But army brass thought it was too radical so they told him to make it in 30-06 so he did and then the brass decided that giving soldiers a 20 round magazine would encourage them to waste ammunition and that they wanted top loaded clips not bottom loaded detachable magazines (because they're easier to load while prone) so he designed the en bloc clip for the Garand and limited the gun to 8 rounds.
The result is the classic PING machine we all know and love although I'm certain there are quite a few WWII GIs who wish they'd had a Garand with a 20 round magazine.
>>29297114
A prototype Garand, the T20, did take BAR mags. The Army brass said to cut that shit out, if given mags soldiers would waste too much ammo. They requested he develop an en-bloc system (which the US military thought was the absolute tits at the time, for various reasons that proved semi-valid).
>>29294218
>>29297155
God I love the Colt Monitor, that thing is pure sex especially that retro futuristic compensator.
>>29286208
I always felt the M1 should have been designed to take BAR mags. If the Garand had the 20 round capacity and FA fire there wouldn't be a need for the BAR at all. Probably wouldn't have been a welcomed concept considering the military then preferred deliberate marksmanship rather than firepower.
>>29297202
As I said John Garand felt the same.
>>29297168
And that's pretty much exactly what he designed when he built the M-14. Although even in 7.62 Nato full retard on an M14 is pretty impossible to control and in 30-06 it would be even worse.
The BAR is heavy as fuck; but being that heavy does at least have the benefit of making the recoil manageable on full auto.
>>29297232
>even in 7.62 Nato full retard on an M14 is pretty impossible to control and in 30-06 it would be even worse.
7.62 NATO was standardized as the same load as M2 ball, just with shortened case.
>>29297168
>You don't need high capacity assault clips
>If you can't kill Jerry in 8 shots you couldn't kill him in 20
Have we discovered the birth of fuddery?
>>29297245
Nah, dude the birth of fuddery with the US military was the insistence on using the single shot trap door rifles when lever action repeaters existed (because scary new technology, use what's proven).
That decision resulted in Custer and his men getting wiped out at Little Bighorn by Sioux warriors who were smart enough to be packing Winchesters.
>>29297168
>>29297172
http://forgottenfirearms.blogspot.com/2011/03/bizarre-offspring-of-m1-garand.html
>>29297172
>various reasons that proved semi-valid
I'd like to hear the semi-valid reasons.
I need a 30-06 rifle that could feasibly take big mags (even if I gotta make them myself), it also must have the ability to swap out the barrel without taking it to a gunsmith.
I saw some quick-change barrel swedish BARs, but that's about it.
>>29297315
The military was sold on the concept that firing from a prone position was the be all and end all in warfare since it minimized the shooter's profile.
Guns loaded from the bottom or side like a lever action rifle or a modern magazine fed assault rifle require you to turn the weapon in order to reload it while guns that load from the back or top like a trap door rifle, a clip fed bolt action or the Garand can be loaded more easily from a prone position since you can keep the rifle upright while loading it.
Removing Nips and Kraut
>>29297315
Ammo consumption was a legit concern, as evidenced by Korea. Even using clip fed weapons, front line units found themselves low on ammo.
Brass figured using a .30-06 mad fed weapon prone would be unwieldy for a rifleman. They also thought the magwell would be a point of entry for dirt and mud- and as reliable as the Garand was for a 1930's-40's semi-auto, it's still an early semi-auto. I know mine would choke- it doesn't even like to run on weaker ammo when the lube is still cold.
En blocs can be stamped out by the thousand for a nickel. Making sure a soldier has enough clips to the point where they're pretty much disposable was incredible, in a time where most magazine'd infantry rifles were issued with one, fitted to the rifle, only to be removed for cleaning. Hell, some milsurp I own has a loop for the mag to be chained to the rifle.
yeah, if I was a GI I would have wanted a T20 sort of Garand. But the en-blocs made sense for the time. The brass had seen the M1895 and were very impressed at the speed experienced soldiers could reload, so they saw it as a viable alternative to mag fed. Hindsight is 20/20.
>>29289461
>>29291640
>>29293530
>>29293560
>>29294615
Is this good enough?
>>29291333
speer hot-cor?
>>29298184
Sounds familiar.
>>29298094
I'd like a russian approach to the new materials. Instead of everything looking like a cheesegrater, just make the same parts, the same shape, but out of your new space plastic.
Hell, all the tactical it really needs is a rail somewhere up top like the new PTRs.
The new STG44 has a great approach to the rail, 2 screws.
>>29286208
It was supposed to replace the M1 Garand but it was too expensive so they ended up buying it only in small numbers and using it as an LMG instead.
Are BAR magazines the only mass-produced high-capacity .30-06 magazines?
Would it be wise, if designing a new 30-06 battle rifle, to make it possible to use BAR mags aswell as your own new production (which would just be new BAR mags)?
>>29298243
>>29286208
To shoot other people more deader with bullets.
Reminder that this 90lb woman handled the BAR like a fucking marine according to reports.
>>29298630
Really? The only account I've ever heard of her actually firing a BAR had her missing rather specularly against a local sheriff tried to apprehend them.
![5564076_2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qNfcBLR.jpg "5564076_2[1].jpg")
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/parts/magazines/1918a3-20rd-magazine-used
>$20 BAR magazines
sheeeeeeeeiiiiiiit
>>29286717
>>29288182
>>29291727
>>29292589
>>29292733
>implying im a britbong
fucking KEK cry more butthurt americucks
>>29286208
A big honkin rifle to fuck shit up.
What else would it be used for?
>>29298663
Yup.
Like a Marine.
>>29297155
Why didn't the Monitor get issued generally?
>>29298094
Noice.
Very Noice.
>>29300584
kek
>>29300574
But really I think this. Just a full auto rifle that used the same bullets that they had a lot of to fuck shit up.
>>29297155
>>29300587
The Monitor was designed for use by the FBI and law enforcement not the military (in 1931).
The military is slower to adopt new technology as we discussed earlier regarding the Garand so they stuck with the older design when WWII arrived prioritizing the BARs use as a stationary gun with a bi pod over lighter weight and mobility.
After WWII the BAR was already regarded as obsolete and they were experimenting with modified Garands which led to the creation of the M14.
![0[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CL4A6yn.jpg "0[1].jpg")
