If the seals wore out, the buffer would lose pressure and cease to function, leaving the gun with both settings running at the “fast” speed. This problem is that the buffer was prone to failure. Second problem is that the buffer adds weight. You know, like Browning did in the first place. Pick the best overall rate of fire, and couple that with semiauto. First, I think two different speeds is an answer to a question nobody was asking – at least not anybody using a BAR in combat. In order to allow slow full-auto fire, a hydraulic buffer in the stock was used to slow down bolt travel. Here’s an example (which I found on YouTube) of the two different speeds: The A2 replaced these with two full-auto settings, fast (~600rpm) and slow (~350rpm).
DP 28 MODS HEROES GENERALS FULL
The M1918 had two selector positions for firing, semi and full auto. This was not to reduce recoil, but rather to slow down the rate of fire. In my opinion (which I will freely admit is not supported by nearly enough experience), these were all poor choices to a greater or lesser extent. On the BAR, the added bloat came from a hydraulic fire rate control buffer in the stock, a flash hider, a bipod (big addition there), folding shoulder plate, magazine guide wings, and a carry handle (ironically needed largely because of all the added weight). Tanks do, aircraft do, the M16 did, and even the FG-42 did. Pretty much everything in military service gets heavier as it gets updated. So what caused this increase in weight? Well, typical bureaucratic demands, really. Five pounds may not sound like a lot, but it is a very significant difference when you have to carry the weapon around all day, fire from the shoulder, move into covered or prone positions, and so on. Well, it turns out the original BAR was lighter – a full 5 pounds lighter! The M1918 weighed 16 pounds, or 25% less – and with that weight much better balanced thanks to the lack of bipod. If you want a taste of the experience, lash two M1 Garands together and go hike a few miles. That is a beast to carry, particularly with the bulky bipod way out at the muzzle. One of the – if not the primary – problems with the A2 BAR is its weight of about 21 pounds. And that required looking back to the original M1918 gun, which Browning actually designed (he was long dead when the A2 was conceptualized). The conclusion that my friend Karl (who shot the A3 in the recent 2-gun match) and I came to is that the M1918A2 BAR is a pretty miserable weapon, easily obsolete by WWII and with many features that are more handicap than benefit to a shooter.But we had to wonder why John Browning, whose work was generally outstanding, would have made so many missteps on the design. Also, I should include the caveat that while I have fired a full-auto A2 BAR, I have only handled a WWI variant, not shot it. I know that the European military versions made by the Poles, Belgians, Swedes and other, and the civilian guns made by Colt solve some of the problems I am going to bring up – but my point here is more about the US Army than the potential of the BAR. I do want to point out that this post is going to consider only the US military BARs. Pretty much every discussion of the BAR today is based on the A2, because there is nobody left alive who actually used the original M1918 in combat (with the exception of a few WWII vets who got unmodified WWI era guns). I got particularly interested in the improvements made between the original WWI version and the A2 version that was so heavily used in WWII and Korea. I was doing some reading up on the BAR, and some shooting with a semiauto Ohio Ordnance Works A3 model BAR recently, in addition to the recent 2-gun match we did with it.