The Best BAR: Luxembourg .30-06 FN-D at the Range

I normally want to have something specific to demonstrate what I take a gun to the range, but today I don’t. What I have today is and FN-D, the very best iteration of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) – and I just wanted an excuse to take it out to enjoy. Specifically, the is a Luxembourg contract FN-D chambered for .30-06. So, please pardon my flimsy excuse, and enjoy!


  1. The original M1918 concept was good at the time, but could have been better (no offense to users of the product in question). We can thank some stupid government bureaucrats for getting grunts killed because they refused to observe private sector development and proper testing in field conditions. The idea that any private development of a squad support weapon system was a figurative pampered lapdog is stupid. Yes I just said that bureaucrats in Ordnance called the commercial varieties of the M1918 a bunch of over-priced pampered lapdogs which would require the government to purchase entirely new kits to go with them, tooling and spare parts included (or that the government would be forced to pay huge licensing fees for wartime production of a single item). I could be wrong, especially with regards to patent law.

    • Please give examples of “grunts killed” because of “stupid government bureaucrats”. The US military stayed with the BAR
      In WW1 WW2 Korea and even into Vietnam.

      • Oh, let’s just ask Kirk what he thinks of the idiocy in developing the M60 as a general-purpose machine gun in complete isolation from field conditions alongside the M14 battle rifle. And yet the idiots who headed those developments were f**king PROMOTED for their “successfulness” in modernizing the army, and never took responsibility or received penalties for the deaths of their own soldiers they indirectly caused.

    • “(…)require the government to purchase entirely new kits to go with them, tooling and spare parts included(…)”
      Firstly I would propose to approach this from another angle: In fact U.S.A. have stockpiles of BAR in excess of its need – as in 1930s U.S. land forces were relatively small (also considering that some were shipped to Great Britain in early WW2).
      If they already have good enough weapons which not required any payment ro manufacturers why bother with bit better alternatives, which require $?

      • Daweo you have hit the nail right square on the head. In the mid to late 1930’s the US Military is in the throes of replacing its ’03 Springfield turnbolt rifles with the M1 Garand. This is also taking place in a time of a Global financial crisis, i.e. the Great Depression. The US Military’s number one priority was to get new battle rifles. They do not have the financial wherewithal to replace the BAR at the same point in time. That means that replacing a “Good Enough” BAR with something better was a lower priority that would have to wait.
        However, once, “War Were Declared,” can I say that on this channel, then the priority for keeping the 1918A1 BAR does become a matter of keeping parts, tools, mags, and kits common across the line of issued weapons. The Ordnance Dept. becomes a slave to the tyranny of logistics. Sorry Cherndog, nothing sinister or idiotic involved. Just the unpleasant reality of the times.

  2. “(…)flimsy excuse(…)”
    If this weapon was adopted before 1950, I think that excuse (or hook if you wish) might be commitment of Luxembourg to Korean War. They did fight in this conflict on side of United Nations and whilst number of soldiers sent (44) might look… mundane compared to other contributors, it was really big part of their military force and they suffered high casualties rate.

  3. The beginning really reminds me of the old Ian’s videos which have used something with a very similar sound, rate of fire and length of bursts for the intro “music”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.