MC:
Automatic RifleI think folks have an overly optimistic view of the BAR in particular and the "true automatic rifle" concept in general.
In short:
The automatic rifle is a concept that never worked as advertised (or named), even with purpose-built "automatic rifles."First off, the BAR was tried in WWI as a full-up automatic rifle
without bipod. It was a true "automatic rifle." Not a LMG, not a crew served weapon with the tripod left home, not an assault rifle firing on FA or burst, but an actual automatic rifle. Designed by Browning, even.
That didn't last long, as it was too heavy to be used as a automatic rifle and soon was produced with a bipod and the BAR
was then a SAW(0) in most every function, albeit with a box mag instead of a belt-feed. Thing is,
most any automatic rifle that has a sustained rate of fire worth a darn will be too HEAVY to use as a rifle, because it takes bbl mass (steel) to manage the heat.
My father, though his hernia kept him out of the service, was of an age to enlist into Army or USMC units that pre-dated the M60 and still had BARs. His best friend did manage to enlist and since he was a corn-fed 6'4" heavily built Iowa farm boy, he was issued the BAR in his infantry unit. The most senior BAR man almost always had the oldest BAR with the highest round count. Reason why, was that the older BARs actions were loose & worn enough that one could stroke the trigger on full-auto quickly/gently enough to actually just send
one round down range per squeeze. The newer ones, not so much. The reason that was valued was because the BAR couldn't hit a point target for squat on FA(2). The preferred technique on the FA BAR range was rapid semi-auto fire.
The previously-linked USMC IAR is about the closest thing to an automatic rifle that can actually be used as an automatic rifle that I have seen:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-m27-infantry-automatic-rifle-062911w/USMC FocusEvery time I have spoken with USMC doctrine, training, and acquisition folk, the common theme is "The squad as a system."(1) When I have interviewed actual USMC infantrymen, the only times they broke down into
non-mutually-supporting fire teams was for patrols when their AO was quiet, as in "No shots fired during the 7 month deployment" quiet. Otherwise, it was squad-sized patrols or greater. Same with all the doctrine materials.
Same,
in application, as the Army units I interviewed. I think that there is too much made of the different Army/USMC light infantry doctrine at the squad & team levels. The USMC, with 3 teams per infantry squad, just has more options & capability,
inside the particular squad, due to the extra fire team in the squad. This capability difference melts away when either branch's infantry task organizes.
FTR, I prefer the idea of 3 teams/squad better. But, I also like pushing independent operation capability down in the organization as far as practical, and the extra fire team allows more independent squad operation possibilities. I also liked my unit's doling out MMGs/GPMGs like candy. Aimed rifle fire = good. Aimed rifle fire + lotsa M240B = better.
(0) The M249 my unit used was ~8lbs lighter than the BAR and had a detachable bipod. The original M249 and the BAR with bipod were with 16 ounces of each other.
If the M249 was too heavy to use as an automatic rifle, so was the only automatic rifle ever deployed by the US military (the BAR). Loaded, the 100 round bag did weigh ~14oz vs the BAR 20 round mag's ~7oz. I suggest that our SAW was a better automatic rifle than the BAR.
(1) The Army has a similar catch phrase, "The soldier as a system." If one takes their different focuses seriously, it has implications for their acquisitions.
(2) Oddly, BAR-men still wanted to hit what they were aiming at, even when their "superiors" directed them to use FA fire.
