The BAR M1918A3 by Ohio Ordnance - Shooting and Mechanism

Published on July 13, 2014
Duration: 24:22

This review of the Ohio Ordnance M1918A3 BAR covers its historical context, shooting characteristics, and internal mechanisms. The video highlights the 'walking fire' tactic, critiques the rifle's weight and ergonomics, and details the differences between the original military versions and this semi-automatic reproduction. It emphasizes the robust tilting-bolt design and its legacy in modern machine guns.

Quick Summary

The Ohio Ordnance M1918A3 BAR is a semi-automatic reproduction. Unlike original military BARs that fired from an open bolt, this version uses a hammer-fired, closed-bolt system for legal compliance and improved accuracy.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to the M1918A3 BAR
  2. 01:10WWI 'Walking Fire' Tactics
  3. 03:10Weight and Modernization of BAR Variants
  4. 05:25European Variants and Ergonomics
  5. 08:00Critique of Sights and Bipod
  6. 11:51Magazine and Shooting Demonstration
  7. 15:31Field Stripping and Semi-Auto Mechanism
  8. 18:14Detailed Locking Mechanism
  9. 21:14Legacy and Conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the M1918A3 designation for the BAR?

The 'M1918A3' designation is specific to Ohio Ordnance Works' semi-automatic reproduction of the Browning Automatic Rifle. It was not an official military designation used for any original BAR variants.

How does the Ohio Ordnance M1918A3 differ internally from the original military BAR?

The M1918A3 is a semi-automatic, closed-bolt, hammer-fired system for legal and accuracy reasons. Original military BARs fired from an open bolt, often with select-fire capabilities.

What were the original tactical uses of the Browning Automatic Rifle?

The BAR was initially designed for 'walking fire' tactics in WWI, allowing soldiers to suppress enemy trenches while advancing. It also served as a squad automatic weapon in subsequent conflicts.

What are the main criticisms of the BAR's design mentioned in the review?

Criticisms include its significant weight (especially WWII variants), poor ergonomics like thin front sights and unusable rear sights, and a cumbersome bipod design that many soldiers removed.

More Reviews Videos You Might Like

More from Forgotten Weapons

View all →