What gun does this bipod go to?

[msmp5]

I just found two of these in a box in my garage. I'm guessing they've been sitting there untouched/undiscovered for close to 30 years. Any of you smart folks know what gun they might go to? From the look of them - heavy and robustly built - perhaps an older military machine gun or squad automatic rifle? I don't know........ Please chime in with your thoughts. Thanks!

 

[JeffG]

FN LAR or FN FAL if my memory is correct. The fact that the height is adjustable suggests an aftermarket accessory.

 

[s76]

Looks like a BAR bipod to me.

 

[JeffG]

Looks like a BAR bipod to me.

Yup, You are right.

 

[s76]

The 37 wingnuts gave it away.

 

[msmp5]

Yup, looks like the BAR is correct, thanks! Some folks are really into these BAR bipods too............

http://www.90thidpg.us/Equipment/Articles/BARBipod/

........... whole lotta info there! I just wish had a Browning BAR or two to go with them! Now to try to figure out what they are worth...........

 

[AlexanderA]

These are the late type of BAR bipods, as evidenced by the two-piece heads and the thumb screws at the top of the lower legs. These are the best and most practical for shooting, but are not authentic for WW2 reenacting (for those who are nitpickers for authenticity). These late bipods are in the same category as BAR carrying handles -- there is scant to no evidence that they were used in WW2. The next time you watch The Longest Day, notice that the BARs carried by the Rangers have carrying handles. This was a technical anachronism by the filmmakers.

 

[msmp5]

So would you guess these are more 1950's or 60's vintage? Any idea what they might be worth or where to advertise them for sale?

 

[AlexanderA]

So would you guess these are more 1950's or 60's vintage? Any idea what they might be worth or where to advertise them for sale?

From the immediate post-WW2 period through Korea and Vietnam.

There are a couple of these on GunBroker right now with starting bids of $225. (Sarco has them for about the same price.) IMO that's high. The last one I bought was about $180 and I may have still paid too much.

You might try listing them on GunBroker or ebay. Or, take them to the Knob Creek MG shoot and find a buyer there.

ETA: The heads, the legs, and the other parts are sometimes available separately (as replacement parts). It's possible to piece together a BAR bipod at considerably less cost than buying a complete unit. This tends to hold down the prices of complete units.

 

[Jim K]

Deleted.

 

[Jim K]

That is the M1918A2, the latest version of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)* and the most common in WWII. Older versions were updated before/during WWII. The bipod goes along with the flash hider, which holds the bipod on. A wave washer tensions the bipod so it moves but without swinging freely, to allow the bipod to adjust to uneven ground. The bipod legs can be adjusted separately for length for the same reason. There is also a monopod that fits into a hole in the bottom of the buttstock; those are scarce. The combination gave a tripod effect that provided good stability in a fixed position, but the monopod was dropped in 1942, though most butt stocks continued to be made for it. Some gunners also "lost" the bipod, using the BAR as originally intended, as an "assault rifle" rather than as a ground supported LMG. The BAR was in some respects, neither fish nor fowl, too light and without a removable barrel to use as an LMG, too big and heavy for an assault rifle. Still, they gave good service. The BAR was the equivalent of the British BREN gun or the German MG.34/42 in the LMG role. One odd feature was that the receivers of most BARs were made of cast (wrought) iron, not machined steel, for increased production. The receivers have been known to crack if the barrel is removed without a proper receiver tool.

Some comments have been made to the effect that the BAR with the muzzle-mounted bipod was inaccurate. That was intentional; the bipod was originally mounted right ahead of the forearm, but it was found that the rifle was so accurate that it literally put all its bullets in the same hole, something desirable in a target rifle, but not in an LMG, where one goal is to spread the "blessings" around.

Jim

*Late manuals drop the "Browning" name under the mistaken belief that it refers to the maker; actually, the name is that of the inventor. John Browning never owned a company or made any production guns - he sold his inventions to others. Colt made the first guns; other companies made later ones.

 

[AlexanderA]

Some comments have been made to the effect that the BAR with the muzzle-mounted bipod was inaccurate. That was intentional; the bipod was originally mounted right ahead of the forearm, but it was found that the rifle was so accurate that it literally put all its bullets in the same hole, something desirable in a target rifle, but not in an LMG, where one goal is to spread the "blessings" around.

Yes, that's the concept of the "beaten zone." Shot dispersal in that type of automatic weapon is considered to be a good thing.

On a related note, notice that all the American bipod-mounted guns of the WW2 and immediate postwar areas had bipods with skid feet. (These include the M1918A2 BAR, the M1919A6 BMG, the M60, the M14A1 squad automatic, etc.) These were designed to slide along the ground and not dig into the ground. In contrast, the post-WW1 M1918A1 BAR had a bipod with spike feet. Newer bipods such as the Harris have neither skid feet nor spike feet, but some sort of intermediate rubber feet.

 

[Jim K]

I have never had the experience of "hitting the dirt" with a BAR that had those spike bipod legs, but I don't think it would be very nice when the spikes dug in as the BAR man hit the ground. Ouch!

Jim

 

[CapnMac]

Anecdotally, during WWII, the troops did not want to carry the very heavy BAR, nor be the guys carrying the extra ammo.
So, what happened is the littlest guy in the unit got stuck with humping the BAR. The next two smallest were the ammo bearing AGs. US Army doctrine used the BAR as a base of fire, so they really needed the two extra dudes carrying the six pocket bandoliers, plus their own LBE and rifles.

Marine doctrine was different. BAR was almost never used in base of fire or defensive fixed position. It was always used a a frorce multiplier, to add covering fires at the squad level rather than platoon. Marine practice was that BAR gunners always seemed to "lose" the bipods, and any other extraneous weight.

Now, after peace broke out, TOE were followed to the letter even if that meant biposd fell out of upper decks of barracks during inspections to make it so.

 

[AlexanderA]

IMO, the mass issuance of the semiautomatic M1 Garand to American troops made the BAR redundant. I don't believe that the BAR, with its limited magazine capacity, tendency to overheat, and lack of a changeable barrel, contributed significantly to the outcome of WW2. The German MG42 was far and away the best LMG of the war. The BAR was just not in the same category.

 

[CapnMac]

The German MG42 was far and away the best LMG of the war.

The MG-42 and the MG-34 before it were not LMG.
Not even used that way by the Germans doctrinally, either.
They are GPMGs, the US parallel was the M-1919, not the BAR.

The comparisons get wobbly as the German Abteilung is a Maniple rather than a Platoon. German doctrine made a maniple based on two GPMG with the rest of the riflemen in support of the MGs.
US doctrine split infantry units into smaller sub units, squads, with platoon support by way of BAR as a sort-of LMG. The Brits were similar, with each platoon having Brens, GPMG were held, in both British and US doctrine, as the Company level. At the German Kompanie level, the Weapons Abteilung was far more likely to have 37mm PAK or super-short infantry howitzers.

Now, in the Pacific, the BAR probably had much less influence overall, mostly from the short engagement ranges. Which makes an interesting comparison, as the Japanese fielded a couple of LMG, and a BAR-equivalent. None of which were superlative in the defense, as they were largely used in lieu of a GPMG.

Which all points to a fundamental problem with LMG in general: They are too heavy in offense; and too light in defense.

 

[Jim Watson]

Roy Dunlap (Ordnance Went Up Front) did not much like the 1918A2. He found the rate reducer to be a source of trouble and thought the older Semi-Full guns were simpler and more dependable.
I have the book on Kindle, but am thinking about paying the $38+ to get a hardback so I can look stuff up. KIndle is great for novels but poor for reference.

 

[AlexanderA]

He found the rate reducer to be a source of trouble and thought the older Semi-Full guns were simpler and more dependable.

According to Ballou's Rock in a Hard Place, after WW1 there was serious consideration within the Army of converting the BAR's to semiautomatic-only. This was based on the experience during the war of "marching fire," which was found to be ineffective while wasting a lot of ammunition. (A suitable doctrine for the use of the BAR as a light machine gun hadn't been developed.) This proposal was shelved because of the ongoing program to develop a semiautomatic rifle, which culminated in the Garand.