mp44 vs bar

But then again Fox, You'll carry yourselve into oblivion with a heavier cartridge, which seems funny when it's overpowered anyway. If you do the most of the killing within 400 yards, why would you want to kill him/ her at a 1000 yards? You will rarely see anyone a such a distance....
 
Ted said:
But then again Fox, You'll carry yourselve into oblivion with a heavier cartridge, which seems funny when it's overpowered anyway. If you do the most of the killing within 400 yards, why would you want to kill him/ her at a 1000 yards? You will rarely see anyone a such a distance....

Then I will do workout and I'm good at shoot. I'm one of top team for markmenship team of my high school.
 
I personaly feel the BAR was better. But it depends on where you would use it. In the pacific it was the weapon of choice. The japanese feared the BAR over any other weapon. I personaly would not want to be on the other end of that weapon. Also one of the main reason why the weapon had only 20 round was that the size of the cartridge was very large. The Stg-44 was mainly used for close combat, while the BAR was used for supressinf machine gun nest our large groups of units
 
hmm

I hope some of you aren't basing your weapon decisions on what works for you in the game "Call of Duty". My choice would be the MP44. After humping the BAR for any length of time, the MP44 would be a blessing. High capacity mag, two modes of fire, light, accurate.
 
If I only can choose one weapon, it has to be the Stg44... Because it is easier to handle than the BAR... This doesn´t matter very much on longer ranges, when fired upon, you simply hit the ground... But on short ranges, it doesnt matter if you hit the ground... You have to eliminate your opponent faster than he is able to eliminate you... Thats where the Stg44 has its edge...

The BAR, while being a great weapon, had a few shortcomings that was not a problem in themselvs, but together they made the weapon less than ideal.

-Weight: Actually very light for a machinegun of its era, but unfortunately too heavy as an assaultrifle.
-Capacity: Only 20rds is too little for a machinegun, but okay for an assaultrifle.
-No QCB: BAD in the SF-role, but okay in the assault-role.

The BAR was neither machinegun nor assaultrifle, but was used as both.

The easiest way to make the BAR more "machinegun", would be to simply turn the mechanism upside down, and create a "Bren-style" BAR with the ability to use 30rd magazines.

In stead of adding a QCB, simply more BARs should be added to the units, like the Marines did, with three BARs per squad, instead of only one like the Army did.
 
Although the BAR is great gun there are many weapons out there these days that have the same hitting and which can be belt fed or with a larger magazine and that are a lot lighter. When you are carrying these dam things this can make a lot of difference
 
The BAR was used to snipe. Chamber one round, and use ingenuity to create a telescopic sight.
There were occasions when the .50 mg was used as a sniper rifle. 1000 meter kills in Vietnam, the previous wars the events were "undocumented." Neither weapon was "official" although the targets are officially dead.

The 30/06 is now coming back, as the US is adopting the M-14 again for certain purposes. The M-14 is an M-1 rifle with a magazine and a selective fire mechanism. My opinion, worth what is is, is that the current range of assault weapons are underpowered bullet hoses.

The BAR needed two features: A way to change a hot barrel quickly and either a bigger magazine or a belt feed. For what it was, a SAW, it was very good. It could have been better.

The MP44 was the first assault rifle. It was very good in it's day, and created a trend.

If I had a choice on which weapon I'd trust my life to in combat, I'd take the BAR. I've carried an M-16 and humped a '60. I wanted an M-14, but that was logistically impossible. I like the heavier bullet and the more powerful cartridge. I liked the accuracy and the range, but I was able to consistently hit targets at 250 meters.
I know a lot of good soldiers who liked the M-16, the lighter system and more rounds.

Of course, most soldiers seldom get a choice.
 
Although I'm an ignorant civilian, I'd always like to offer a thought to demonstrate my foolishness and make people correct me.
I think the MP44is a close range weapon, as the Germans realized that close-range submachine guns were really effective in urban areas, as they realized in Barbarossa. So if I were in Stalingrad, Moscow, Berlin, Leningrad, or any other city, the MP44 would be my best friend
The Bar was a capable rifle (to say the least) and was effective for more ranged combat. That's all I know as I prefer submachine guns and are far more interested in them
 
M-14 is 7.62NATO(3.08). The Johnson Light Machine Gun was better than the BAR, but Johnson pissed off the Army Brass by pushing the M1941 too agressively, so only a very limited # were purchased.
 
Back
Top