Reiben's BAR

Hwy RK Bill,

Yes, SAW is an acronym for Squad Automatic Weapon, but that term was not used in WW2. The original poster stated "It was common back then for SAW gunners to remove the bipod on their BAR since it only made the weapon heavier than it already was." which is wrong in several ways.

There were no "SAW gunners" back then. They were "BAR men" using the rifle as a light machine gun at the squad level. My uncle was a little guy, but he was decorated infantryman who carried a BAR in action from D-Day until the end of the war in Europe. He was less than 5 feet 4 inches tall but apparently had no trouble carrying that 16 pound rifle plus a bunch of magazines. He said that two other GIs in his squad would usually carry extra magazines to keep the BAR fed when in use. He also said the idea of shooting from the hip in "walking fire" was nonsense. His job was to provide automatic fire from a prone position whenever possible and while using the bipod which supported the rifle in such a position that reloading the magazines was easier from the prone position. He was not a "SAW gunner;" he was a BAR man.

The empty Garand was 9.5 pounds while the empty M16 is a bit over 7 pounds. The empty BAR was 16 pounds, but the bipod probably weighed another two pounds. Before jumping on the idea the M16 is a 2.5 pound saving over the Garand, the M16 has been commonly replaced by the M16A4 the M4 and other variants. All start out at or near 7 pounds, but when you add the Picatinny rail, optics, and all the other bling in vogue today, they are very near the weight of the Garand - without the advantage of a .30 caliber cartridge.

This original poster had stated on another thread he/she "...would hate to be a soldier during WWII. You can either have a cumbersome, awkward M1 Garand; or an M1 Carbine or SMG, which lack accuracy and long-range stopping power. Or you can carry a heavy-ass 30-cal machine gun. A great alternative would be the BAR, but that thing is heavy." This is just plain silly. The Garand in WW2 was a far better infantry rifle than any other used by any army. Before someone cites the STg 44 to refute my previous statement, please remember the STg 44 was not really a factor since they simply did not have but a few in service. Was the STg a better infantry rifle than the Garand? Yes, it was, but it simply was not a viable weapon due to the lack of them.

WW2 was a sub-machine gun war, but it was not an assault rifle war. Other than the GI using the Garand, most infantry soldiers of WW2 fought with bolt action rifles. Yes, many soldiers on both sides had sub-machine guns, but they were a small minority of soldiers.

These were the long-arm infantry weapons of WW2. There was nothing "wrong" with them; they reflected the weapon technology of the time. To simply say they were heavy and you would hate to be a soldier because of the weight is just plain silly and really demeans the efforts of all soldiers who used those weapons in service to their countries.

Sorry RK Bill, but the original poster's comments should not be allowed to stand without some comment from a different point of view.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile