|
|
Post by Guinness on Feb 11, 2010 14:09:33 GMT -5
 Hmmm.... looks like I'm gonna need to get 2 of the new Chicom B.A.R.'s so I can make one of these variants  It's a Colt 'Monitor' |
|
|
|
Post by burke on Feb 11, 2010 15:13:57 GMT -5
Thatts the gun Clyde used to chop his down right? Untill he hit the Army armory or whatever?
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant 
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 11, 2010 15:30:04 GMT -5
Clyde only had the B.A.R's i believe , since the R80 Monitor only had a production run of around 120 or 130 and was only used by the F.B.I.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairy apple on Feb 11, 2010 16:05:38 GMT -5
I have a photo of an FBI agent using one of those... I wish I could remember where I saw it.. it was a cool photo. Neat gun. What's up with the pencil?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guinness on Feb 12, 2010 2:02:14 GMT -5
I believe its holding the action open?
The article I read on it said that was a Cutt's Compensator on it- I'll likely have to use one from a Thompson, I'm thinking cannibalizing a cybergun m1928, so it's not going to be 100%... Really the main thing I like is the pistol grip like the Belgian version...
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 12, 2010 2:23:44 GMT -5
I believe its holding the action open? The article I read on it said that was a Cutt's Compensator on it- I'll likely have to use one from a Thompson, I'm thinking cannibalizing a cybergun m1928, so it's not going to be 100%... Really the main thing I like is the pistol grip like the Belgian version... Guinness , the Cutt's compensator on the R80 was different than the one on the M1928 , you might have to make one from scratch Here's a close up of the R80 Cutt's compensator  |
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 12, 2010 2:25:27 GMT -5
I have a photo of an FBI agent using one of those... I wish I could remember where I saw it.. it was a cool photo. Neat gun. What's up with the pencil? This photo?  |
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Feb 13, 2010 1:10:56 GMT -5
damn that would be pretty cool. While I love my VFC I still hope that the chinese clones come out so I can begin to modify some of the many BAR variants out there. The jungle carbine version from the bannana wars still tempts me as a real nice cut down.
|
|
deacon
Private 1st Class
Posts: 748
|
Post by deacon on Feb 13, 2010 2:07:15 GMT -5
Oh yeah! I have seen one of those Cutts, and they are Huge! well in comparison to a Thompsons.
|
|
Seff
Private
.30-06 - Turning Cover into Concealment since 1906
Posts: 344
|
Post by Seff on Feb 13, 2010 14:56:40 GMT -5
The BAR is in general huge in comparison to a Thompson.  |
|
|
|
Post by Guinness on Feb 13, 2010 15:19:59 GMT -5
No doubt that the two muzzle brakes are different- I wonder why they would need to make it that much larger than a Thompson Cutts though... As the .45 caliber projectile is about a 1/3 larger in diameter than a 30.06 projectile, you would think that it should be at very least equal in size.  |
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 14, 2010 4:14:21 GMT -5
Cool picture.
The rise up of a barrel when firing is effected by many things, the most important being powder volume and muzzle velocity. Both considerably greater with the 30 Cal ammunition. A thommy gun rode up horribly but nothing when compared to a BAR. By design the BAR was intended to be fired from the prone position with the bipod and the butt plate flap over the shoulder and the free hand used to press the weapon down by placing it on top of the butt stock.
If fired while moving it was intended to be fired from the hip with the free hand placing downward pressure up front of the receiver group. The 45 pistol kicked up quite pronouncedly as the muzzle velocity was quite low creating alot of blow back as you know the Thompson used the 45 round but in a poor ergonomic design and firing full auto. Having extensively fired both it is amazing that you can actually see the slugs going down range. (Not so with the BAR!)
It will be cool to see some twisted configurations for this new inexpensive offering. I have two ordered!
|
|
Seff
Private
.30-06 - Turning Cover into Concealment since 1906
Posts: 344
|
Post by Seff on Feb 14, 2010 10:03:24 GMT -5
I agree that the Thompson jumps all over the place - I found it harder to control than a full auto M16. Even with the improved ergonomics of the Ar-15 design the considerably added power of the 5.56 as opposed to the .45 should still tip the case to the Thompson's favor, yet the design of the Thompson ruins this.
The M1911A1, while a kicker for sure, is a lot more useful for me. Damn that's a nice gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairy apple on Feb 14, 2010 12:22:05 GMT -5
That's funny, I've never shot a BAR but I found the Thompson pretty easy to control... at least eaiser then I expected it to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Feb 14, 2010 12:40:26 GMT -5
I agree that the Thompson jumps all over the place - I found it harder to control than a full auto M16. Even with the improved ergonomics of the Ar-15 design the considerably added power of the 5.56 as opposed to the .45 should still tip the case to the Thompson's favor, yet the design of the Thompson ruins this. The M1911A1, while a kicker for sure, is a lot more useful for me. Damn that's a nice gun. Besides the design factors, you've got some basic physics contributing to the Thompson's recoil. Newton's Third Law (I think, it's been a long time). Action, reaction and all that. Expanding powder gas pushes the bullet down the barrel. But it's also pushing the gun away from the bullet. The more mass the bullet has, the more energy from the burning powder is going to be exerted in moving the gun. A .45 bullet weighs 220-230 grains. A 5.56mm bullet weighs 55-80 grains. |
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Feb 14, 2010 12:46:20 GMT -5
One of the great mysteries of WWII (to me, at least) is why the US Army never adopted a BAR with a pistol grip. Besides the Colt version, FN was making a pistol grip (and also a changeable barrel) version for the Polish and Belgian armies. They had to be aware of these. You'd think they would have gotten a couple for comparison.
Of course, maybe they did and decided it wasn't worth changing. The Army in the 1930's was very insular and very underfunded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guinness on Feb 14, 2010 14:28:41 GMT -5
I'll tell ya what's difficult to control- lol
The two select fire guns that I thought were the most challenging to control are the M2 Carbine and the M14.
Of course whenever I shoot a rifle, I can't help but replay Basic Training and Tech School and the instructors yelling at you "Short Bursts!!" So, the Thompsons were never a problem for me there, the MP40 is just fun to shoot, and the M3A1 shoots so slow (to me) that you have to remember to shoot bursts...
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 14, 2010 14:38:29 GMT -5
Full auto FN FAL , you think the M14 is hard to control in full auto the FAL is even worse , but yeah the Thompson is not to bad if you are in the right stance , grease gun fires so damn slow that it's just fun as hell to shoot , the STG44 is also easy to control in full auto , almost shoots just like an M16.
The BAR is a monster , but you can at least fire it from the hip while walking forward towards the target , try doing the same thing with an MG42 , you'll be on your ass before you know it.
|
|
