1918A2

[bmarvin]

My Royal Typewriter just showed up in th email.

Forms went in on 9.28.11 and were approved 4.19.12.

The seller was on vacation so it took a couple extra weeks to get it.

Photos to follow

Brian

[jim c 351]

Brian,

Congratulation, can't wait to see the photos. Damn shame the transfer took so long. Who was the examiner?? If you plan on shooting it, perhaps you could do a video. I love seeing the BAR in action. Do you know any interesting history.

I would have rather bought a BAR than the Lewis , but the BAR costs 2-3 times as much.

Jim C

[bmarvin]

Jim,

I faxed in a Freedom request today. The fellow I bought it from got it in 1987.

Doesn't look like it has seen alot of use.

I don't get out to shoot much anymore.

Life keeps on getting in the way.

Brian

[bmarvin]

Here are a couple quick shots.

[jim c 351]

Brian,

Really nice BAR. Hope to see some close ups later and a live fire demo.

Is Royal Typewriter a Korean era gun??

Jim C

[av8tr]

Here is a short video of my #3 son shooting our Marlin Rockwell BAR. It went through an A2 upgrade in WWII.

[jim c 351]

av8tr,

Nice video. Nice to see your son likes shooting.

What is your opinion on the slow setting. I don't like it. It feels like the gun is malfunctioning. If I ever get a BAR I think I'd remove the plunger and convert it back to WW1 style.

Whats your opinion??

Jim C

[av8tr]

Jim,

 

The gentleman I bought it from may have done that, or when it went through the A2 mod. they left the fire mechanics alone. It was parked, has the new style trigger guard assembly with mag guides, cut down forend, bakelite butt stock, and a NESA barrel, but still fires semi or full auto. I like it this way as well, but I have to say I have not fired one in the slow auto configuration. It's a cool rifle, for sure.

 

Richard

[darrylta]

A very nice WWII BAR!

It's great you have a son with the FA itch, I've got two sons

who couldn't care less

Life and careers are presently in the way for them, maybe they'll see the light

and grow into them? I too got into it late in life for the same reasons.

-Darryl

Edited June 5, 2012 by darrylta

[Sarge]

I like the slow FA setting on my BAR. Yes it does go chug a lug like a Grease gun, but I like it. It is slow enuf that the rifle can easily be shot just like it was a semi auto, but if you hold it down it goes faster. Thus I see no advantage to semi only.

I think most things should be in pairs so they don't get lonely. Here are mine.

Sarge

Edited June 10, 2012 by Sarge

[av8tr]

Great photo. Very nice pieces of history.

[Sarge]

Well the site doesn't want to let me edit my post so I'll do it this way. Forgot to add the following:

 

Yes Royal Typewriter was a Korean War only BAR maker. Both of mine are RTs made in 1953. One has gone thru rebuild at Red River Army Depot as stamped on the receiver. Don't remember if that is dated or not.

Sarge

Edited June 26, 2012 by Sarge

[jim c 351]

I like the slow FA setting on my BAR. Yes it does go chug a lug like a Grease gun, but I like it. It is slow enuf that the rifle can easily be shot just like it was a semi auto, but if you hold it down it goes faster. Thus I see no advantage to semi only.

I think most things should be in pairs so they don't get lonely. Here are mine.

Sarge

 

Sarge,

I have very little shooting experience shooting the BAR, less than 150 rds. And I was shooting off sandbags, not the bipod. It seemed to me that a 3 shot burst had a larger beaten zone on slow than fast. I felt that the 2nd rd went off at peak recoil and the same with the 3rd rd.

On fast it seemed the 2nd rd would fire before full recoil rise, thus making a tighter beaten zone.

I sure it would have been different off of the bipod, if I felt like laying in the dirt.

Also there is nothing wrong with semi fire if full is not warranted.

Jim C

[emmagee1917]

This weekend was interresting . I had sold a friend of mine a Group Industries FA BAR back 20 or so years ago. I had it for years and could not get it to function right . We finally determined it was mis-machined , the slide cuts being offset to one side. He bought it knowing this and said he was going to have it fixed. Well , he finally did so. We took it out this last weekend to try it. In the intervening years , my wife and mom went in together and bought me a OOW semi-BAR for a birthday ( Aug ) AND Christmas present one year. I wanted a side by side impression of the two. I was fearing that I would have a great sellers remorse over this.

The semi-BAR is a tack driver , but the trigger is very heavy and the sights have 4-inch a click adjustments . Never the less , hammer taping and filing the front sight had given me a dead on 100 yd. sight-in ( 3 out of 5 in the 10 ring of a six inch bull ) . 200 yd and 500 yd groupings were also very good in relation to the sights. I found it no trouble firing 5 shot groups rapid from the bipod of 3 ( best) to seven ( worst from one flyer ) inches at 200 nor keeping most shots on a 2 foot rock at 500 in a rapid 20 shot string.

The FA was not as finely sighted in , but I found it to be quite accurate in both fast and slow. I agree the slow is more "stuttery " . I found that if the bipod did not scoot and slip , the 500 yd 3-shot bursts were not much bigger than my slightly slower rapid semi-fire . If they did move a little , the group was huge. When they did slip , it took much longer to reaquire the rock. Total time for a 20-shot mag to achieve a very high hit rate at 500 was very close between the FA and the semi.

I ended up being greatly pleased with both rifles . They both brought a lot to the table in a non-combat range - type role. I'm not sure which I would get the most enjoyment from over time. Anyway , I walked away without the seller's remorse feeling I thought I'd of had . But , then again , I have several FA subguns and beltfeds that bracket the BAR to satisfy the FA bug . And , I'm still looking forward to getting a M1941 Johnson LMG in semi and building my two ANM2 s into semi-auto stingers when the side plates become available.

Chris