Mr. Wise– I think you mistake your rifle. BAR’s magazine precluded adequate volume of fire, which was arguably it’s biggest flaw in combat use, but accuracy was never a problem for the gun.
The BAR never really had a home and was ill-suited for the SAW role, and is still heavier than sin, but don’t confuse it as having “fire hose” accuracy. Anyone with the privilege of firing one will tell you it is a tack driver.
As to the “updated” version in the post, there is always more money than taste out there.
Although I am sure the mechanical and ergonomic functionality of this rifle is probably better than that of the parent weapon, I’m not sure I like the “tacti-cool” aesthetics from a historical standpoint. Somehow, I just tend to associate the BAR with its original form, although I will admit that FN’s Type D is about as far as I will go. Strictly my personal preference, of course.
If this OOW BAR weighs anything close to the original, it would be a handful for continuous field use. Quite a price to pay if it is still chambered in 30-06. An add-on folding carrying handle would be useful ; the rear of the top Picatinny rail is adjacent to the probable center of balance, so this is where the handle could be attached.
I’m with Earl. An FN-D would have been cool. This is like those ATI kits for Mosins: tasteless. It looks like somebody wanted an AR-10, but for some odd reason sunk a lot of money into an even more expensive gun to get something that does what an AR-10 does in a package that weighs almost twice as much. More money than sense… an old problem.
Tam, I respect the fact that you find the OOW BAR appealing, even though it doesn’t suit me personally. If you like it, enjoy it by all means , and no-one has the right to criticize you for your choice. As we all know, it’s an individualistic thing.
We’re not allowed semiauto rifles in the UK – and it seems like you lot might have a problem in the future. That said, I took collection of a Henry Repeating Arms Co. .357 lever action an hour ago……. 🙂
It must have suited someone’s fancy….alas, not my own. The classic lines of the original BAR are rather compelling. This is, perhaps, the opposite.
From a practical point of view, the suppressor may dampen some of the barrel vibration and actually INCREASE the accuracy, however, that would, quite certainly be considerably offset by the utter absence of a cheek-weld to go with that rather high scope mount.
Improved stock, bipod, handguards, pistol grip. Suppressor to reduce flash, report and felt recoil. Scope and NV mounts. What is not to like? You guys are haters. The original BAR was improved for WWII. This mods further improve the design. I love old guns for their historical value, but there are plenty of stock BARs.
Seriously though, if this weapon has been modified and accurized for the sniper/counter-sniper role in a long-range magnum or high-powered caliber such as .300 Weatherby, .300 Remington Ultra-Magnum, .300 WSM or .338 Lapua, the weight and the modern add-ons might be justifiable after all since the BAR action is a solidly-engineered, time-proven and reliable one that could suit this purpose. On the other hand, the short, low-magnification scope in the example pictured would seem to counteract this assumption, unless it was installed merely for display purposes. Also, while the gun appears to have a very high-quality adjustable MAGPUL buttstock installed, the buttpad seems to be of the standard 0.30″ thick Mil-Spec type normally found on 5.56mm M-16/M-4 rifles/carbines using the MAGPUL furniture system, hardly an indication of being chambered for a high-powered cartridge (again, unless other circumstances dictated temporary installation for mere display purposes).
Ian, while you are there at SHOT 2013, would it be possible to garner more concrete information from OOW and their intent concerning their BAR? It may help to lay to rest all the current speculation about the gun.
Very strange combo, neither fish-nor fowl. BAR by its virtue is built to be hefty, it does not fit well with idea of modern assault weapon, untill you go full auto only. While saying that I hold BAR in great respect, in its original configuration. I am not sure if people generally realize it, but it was start for FN’s MAG58.
I work with the guy who designed the modifications to this, Robert W. Landies III. The gun weighs in at about 13lbs with optics (12.5 with bipod only… meaning over 6.5lbs weight reduction). He hastily chose the optic for display purposes for the SHOT Show. It has a 16in fluted barrel, chambered for .30-06. Our full-length (24in) 1918A3 should be capable of about 1 MOA accuracy with surplus ammunition, and I was told by our past lead armorer that cutting down a barrel will typically improve a rifle’s accuracy. The only purpose of the M16A2-style buffer tube is to accomodate any modern buttstock. There is actually an adapter that houses a hydraulic buffer that reduces felt recoil significantly. The whole gun is “ceracoated” – a ceramic based paint that is very hard and corrosion-resistant.
The idea for this gun was born when a lot of customers called wanted some sort of rail for the 1918A3 to accomodate optics. We have made rare, “one-off” BAR variants for some of our customers, including the FND and a short 1920s-era “jungle” model with a 16in barrel that our lead armorer shot a sub-MOA 3-shot group with.
So, OOW took the opposite approach — by lightening the gun and keeping the original 30-06 caliber, while incorporating recoil reduction ( hence the thin butt-pad ) and other additions. Nice work, guys.
I understand this gun is not for everyone. For people that appreciate innovation and new customizable options, this is the gun. I grew up in our factory. Seeing hundreds of the original version roll off the assembly line always gave me goose bumps, so I understand the “classic” John Browning appeal.. but have we not put rails/optics/bipods/etc on the M14 with EBR stock and most of all the M16! That thing started with the beaver-tail handguard and look where it is today. That being said, there will always be people that are looking for something new and exciting, a more cutting edge model. That is why I took JMB’s iconic receiver design, slighlty modified it, and added some options for the gun enthusiast who wants to have add-on capability. That is what you see here.
The Shot Show was its first debut, and I was thrilled to see people’s positive responses there. That is the place to take the newest ideas and creations. I will say that the optics/stock on it were not the most ideal ones out there, but it was meant for display purposes only.
I am open to comments, but open-minded ones. And remember.. if you dont like the newest version, just buy the original!
Thanks for the update, Robert — and best of luck with the “new” BAR! I sincerely hope you will have much success with it.
A one-third weight reduction in an existing design is pretty significant. Apart from the more obvious features that contributed to this ( reduced barrel length, lightweight synthetic furniture, etc. ), did you end up having to do additional work on the receiver and internal working parts as well, while maintaining reliability and a high quality standard? I’m intrigued, as no doubt many others on this web site probably are.
The weight reduction has come from every area of the gun actually. Obviously the barrel being shorter and fluted, the gas system being shorter, the handguard being high strength polymer (not that much reduction due to size increase over original wood). The buttsock/buffer system was a major loss area, and lastly the lightening cuts in the receiver (which was tricky to maintain strength and overall receiver appearance). The internals are actually the same high grade steel. Any messing around with those would likely lead to some form of integrity failure. There are a few more small “tweaks” I am looking into to get it sub-12lbs. My design goal from the beginning was <13lbs, so when I reached 12.5 mark and still had a few more ideas I figured I would push it to the max. The weight reduction at first threw a few flags with me because the original weight of the gun helped absorb some of the felt recoil, but the new hydraulic buffer system absorbs so much of the recoil that the weight reduction was not an issue.
The accuracy has not yet been tested past 300yds, but I am working on getting it to 600 and 1000yds. The original version (A3) has been taken to 1000yds by multiple customers and said to have held accurate groupings, but nothing has been documented on paper to date at that distance so it will be interesting to see what both rifles do, especially the new one with a nice scope on it!
Thanks again for your interest. Feel free to email me and I can send some different pictures… RLandies@oowinc.om
As long as it’s restorable, I like it. And I agree with the “countersniper” comments. One of the BAR’s problems as a crew support weapon was that it was too accurate to really disperse fire. Three accurate shots at 500 meters, though…