Not wanting to Hijack another thread, and wanting to have some intelligent discussion, not a Hatfield and McCoy Fued, I would be intrested in hearing everybodies thoughts, on which one is the best Infantry "Automatic Rifle"[IAR]?
By IAR I mean operated by one man, on his feet, not as a crew served gun.

Also base your comments on the time frame of WWII.

BAR. Lighter and easier for one man to handle. Can be easily fired from both the shoulder or off a bipod. Not as prone to jamming as the Bren and better sights.

I'll admit the Bren holds quite a bit more ammo, but rounds that aren't on target are wasted rounds. Only those that hit matter.

But both pale next to the modern M-240. Now that's a light machine gun.

I've heard/seen the exact opposite, the Bar jams more and the Bren handles better. Magazine changes are slower and harder on the BAR and it's ridiculous to have just a 20 round magazine on something that is full auto.

I like both the BAR and the Bren gun...particularly if the BAR is one of the European versions (with the QC barrels). I think the American version of the BAR with the fixed barrel is the poorest of the two series overall.

That is not saying it isn't a good functioning, generally reliable weapon, just not quite as good in my eyes as either the Bren or the European BAR.

I prefer the original Bren guns in the rimless 8 m/m to the British ones in the rimmed .303 chambering. When the Brits "borrowed" the design from the Czechs, they converted it to .303 mainly for logisitics reasons...there certainly was no improvement in the function of the gun by doing that.

I also prefer the Bren because it is very reliable and has QC barrels and a bigger magazine, but most of all as a mud weasel (infantryman) during some of my years in the Army I came to prefer the magazine situated above the gun rather than below. There are times when being able to hold the gun lower (laying right on the dirt) makes me feel a whole lot safer...especially if somone on the other side is using heavy MGs for suppressive fire directed even generally in my vicinity.

And it is a whole lot easier to change the mag when one doesn't have to raise the whole 19-pound gun off the ground with one hand while lying prone, and hold it there, to get at it. That to me is one of the major downsides of the BAR, regardless where made.

Neither. The MG/42 rules!

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:
Neither. The MG/42 rules!

But, the MG 42 is a crew-served weapon, and thereby in the light-machine gun class, not a magazine-fed one man weapon like either the BAR or the Bren.

Among the LMGs, the MG/42 is superb and my preference over the U.S. 1919-A4 of WWI and the M-60 of post WWII days. But not the same kind of weapon for the same kind of tactical uses as the Bren and BAR.

Yes the MG 42 is a great Machine Gun, if not THE best, it is one of the best, for sure, I have actually shot one a fair amount, I cut a car in half, and then reduced it to small pieces with one, however as AC stated it is out side the scope of this thread discussion.

So lets consider the BAR, and the BREN.

And then lets think for a few minutes..., would a magazine fed 308 full auto "Automatic Rifle" have a place in todays US Military. Say something like a H&K G3/M21, or something similar that fed from a 50 or 75 round drum, or something that fed from a 30 round stick magazine from the side like a FG 42.

Something like the H&K that would take @ a 4X scope with a Ballistic Cam, that could be fielded by one man and provide accurate long range semi auto fire, and accurate full auto fire when necessary...


In other words do what the M15, was designed to do, with the addition of modern optics???

The Automatic Rifle, in 30 cal was thought of to be a "force multipler".
Now they did not use/know that "exact term" in WWII, as it is a new definition...
But the principle is the same, from WWII to Today.

I have had a serious lust for what I think was the father of all Squad Automatic Weapons, the Lewis Gun.
The Lewis is far older than the Bren or the Browning and could hold its own with both.

Cheers, John

quote:

I'll admit the Bren holds quite a bit more ammo, but rounds that aren't on target are wasted rounds. Only those that hit matter.

Eh?

Having classified with the Bren Gun in 303 I can assure you that lack of accuracy was NOT an issue with the Bren!

Indeed it was almost "too accurate" (if that can ever be a handicap). Those telescopic sights on No4(T) Lee Enfield rifles were originally destined for the Bren. Thus the windage knob being on the "wrong" side.

As to the Bren being susceptible to jamming that is a nonsense and, in any case, it required only three "Immediate Action" drills to clear any jam.

The Lewis from a friend who trained on and used one had apparently several potential jams in two positions!

Bottom line is that for 1919 the BAR was probably the best in the world, but by 1938 compared to the Bren it was (as others have said) neither "light" nor any real sort of "machine gun"!

Certainly I would have doubted that a BAR could (with its limited magazine capacity AND mounted underneath with an awkward release for the No2 to get at) unlike the Bren be used efficiently in the AA role.

But by post-WWII neither really were "state of the art".

Don't think the Bren was ever regarded as a one man weapon, more light machine gun than automatic rifle. All kinds of gizmoz and accessories to make it more versatile. Never heard of a BAR meant to be used in the anti aircraft role, or fired along set lines. Don't really think of it as a fair comparison. Soldier carrying a BAR was no more capable, than one carrying an M14 or an FAL. Once that barrel gets too hot, she's game over. With the Bren, you just slip another one in and keep firing.

I have shot both quite a bit and for me the BAR wins hands down. I think the BAR magazine is a whole lot easier to change as it simply slips right in, the Bren needs to be cammed in which I find awkward. Also the BAR will WORK and work well with full 20 rounds in the magazine, the BREN doesn't and you will quickly learn not to put more then 26 or 27 rounds in the BREN mags. Also the BREN is a whole lot heavier than the BAR, the BAR weighs about 6 or 7 pounds less! Also, the BAR doesn't jam as easily as the BREN, probably due to the much larger bolt carrier races with the BAR vs the tiny little ones on the BREN. Another issue with the BREN is it can only be sighted from a right hand shooting position! My grandfather hated it for that reason.

Having said all the the BREN has an awesome bipod, the BAR's bipod sucks!

One last thing. The BAR is an automatic rifle, the BREN was the light machine gun of the Empire. The BREN guns US counterpart was the M1919 not the BAR. I think many people get confused on this because the BREN was magazine fed as was the BAR. The BREN was crew serviced, the BAR was not.

quote:

One last thing. The BAR is an automatic rifle, the BREN was the light machine gun of the Empire. The BREN guns US counterpart was the M1919 not the BAR. I think many people get confused on this because the BREN was magazine fed as was the BAR. The BREN was crew serviced, the BAR was not.

That is the key answer. I also have shot both a lot. The BARs were in new condition and so were the 7.62 NATO Brens the Aussies had. Not any difference between them as far as accuracy or reliability over 600 meters that i could discern. The Bren was/is a light machine gun, the BAR an automatic rifle. Big difference in tactical use and deployment, or at least there should be.

Larry Gibson