Boy, it'd be nice to be able to bid on American auctions...

Claven2

Claven2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
409   0   2
Location
Onterrible
especially if the prices were more like Canadian market prices...

Check this out!

Live, full auto, cool factor, etc. Yes, it's not the best machinegun ever made, but it was a considerable leap forward at the time it was designed and built - the first ever squad automatic rifle ;)

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=7534246&aa=%20%20French%20ChauChat%20Model%201915%208mm%20lebel%20with%206%20magazines

DSC03264.JPG
 
I can remember when these were being sold, live or dewat, $14.95 to $29.95, depending on condition. I have the book "Honour Bound - The Chauchat Machine Rifle" by Demaison and Buffetaut. Very interesting read. Recall seeing only one Chauchat in Canada, a dewat at a London ON show. Of course, US dewats in the 60s were not subject to the sort of buggery that current Cdn guidelines require.
 
$14.95-29.95 for live Chauchats??? How old ARE you tiriaq??? I wasn't around in 1929 to see those prices and favorable laws in Kannuckistan - lol.
 
Same price dewat or functional. The $200 transfer tax would have meant that very few live ones would have been sold. That one in the auction would be one of a very few that escaped deactivation, because of the cost of the transfer tax. It is in remarkably fine condition, probably as nice a one as in existance. Over 230 000 CSRGs were made, more than any other mg during WWI. The French squad by 1918 had an automatic rifleman with two ammunition carriers, a rifle grenadier, and several riflemen. Tactics involved fire and movement using the automatic rifle team as the base. Nothing much has really changed, has it?
I'm 60, started shooting in an organized youth league whan I was 9.
See if you can find any old gun magazines from the late 50s, early 60s. The prices look remarkable, but remember that wages were in proportion.
 
I know, I know... couldn't resist a friendly jab :) In 1950 I was but a twinkle in my 3 year old father's eye... lol.

I agree though... that CSRG is exceptionally fine. The $9500 price reflects that too - eek!

I would surmise the Ammo carriers likely would have been armed with either 1892 Revolvers and/or a Mle 1892 Mousketon D'Artillerie. Contrary to popular belief, the Mle1916 carbines and rifles were only issued in quantity in late 1918 and saw negligble use in the Great war, though they were the main issue afterward and into WW2. Most of the war was fought with 10 rd. Lebel 1886/93's and 3 round Berthiers like the 1907/15.
 
Last edited:
Might be interesting to have one. But I have read that the Chauchat, at least in it's 30.06 verson, is just about the worst machine gun ever built!
 
Gibbs505 said:
Might be interesting to have one. But I have read that the Chauchat, at least in it's 30.06 verson, is just about the worst machine gun ever built!
Click to expand...

By modern day standards, probably true. But by WW1 standards, it was among the best available and definitely the most portable - way more portable than the LEWIS.
 
Last edited:
According to "Honour Bound", the problem with the M1918 .30 CSRGs may have been a problem with chamber dimensions. It seems very few of the .30 CSRGs were actually used. The 8mm Lebel cartridge was a real hurdle, and magazine design and quality didn't help. The Belgian CSRGs in 7.65x54 and Polish ones in 7.92x57 apparently worked fine.
 
I would take a Chauchat, too in that fine a condition. Ok, so apparently they sucked, but that was in the trenches. Firing a clean, well maintained one for ####s and giggles at the range would prob. produce fine results. I wonder where one would get parts. They're pretty simple guns, making a S/A Kanuckistan legal one would be easy?
 
I have read some horror stories of people firing them, on this was just a few years ago!! The gun would fire 2 or 3 rounds after releasing the trigger and when inspected, it had a crack in the chamber!! yes that should have been found, but I guess they did not give it a detailed strip check!

As for the trenchs, just look at the photo! All those lovely gaps in the mags, just waiting to be filled with mud!!
 
As for the trenchs, just look at the photo! All those lovely gaps in the mags, just waiting to be filled with mud!!
Click to expand...

that was exactly my thought!

Claven, this Mle.1916 carbine you speak of, is it semi-automatic??
 
The earlier magazines were flimsy, were easily damaged, and the springs would take a set if the magazines were left loaded too long. The later ones were a bit better. The open sides were obviously a liability. The CSRG was long recoil, and as it heated up friction would increase until the barrel would fail to return to battery. In tests with a brand new rifle, something over 300 rounds rapid would result in jamming. Once the rifle cooled a bit, firing could be resumed for a shorter period. Being long recoil, dirt and mud were real problems, and the rifles were not to be removed from these covers until immediately prior to use. The CSRG's only advantages were that it was available, and could be mass produced. With serious training, and real effort, they could be used effectively.
 
Of course, it's important to point out, the Germans had nothing to counter it. Their machineguns were all fixed position Maxim-type arms. The Chauchat, on the other hand, was light, portable, and could even be fired from the hip on the march accross no man's land.

The next closest thing was the LEWIS, which was too heavy to fire on the move, was MUCH harder to change the mags on, and required ALOT more resources to produce and field.
 
Last edited:
Uh, not to be a smartass but I assume you're talking about the Lewis there Claven? AFAIK what you just said is equally true about it.
 
French infantry drilled in walking fire, with an assistant changing magazines during the advance. I doubt that this would have worked very well in practice.
The US had some BARs ready by 1918, but delayed issue until it was thought to be too late for the Germans to copy any captured examples. The BAR is generally considered to be a superior automatic rifle, but it was a matter of too little, too late as far as the Great War is concerned.
I have hip fired a Lewis gun, and can state that it is not a practical way to use one. The Lewis is just too big and awkward to be effective hand held. Prone is another matter,of course.
 
nkdjames said:
I can't believe you're actually trying to convince people that the Chauchat is better than a Lewis!!! What a laugh!!!
Click to expand...

Umm... you might want to re-read the thread again. No-one's saying it's better than the Lewis, just that it filled a different role that the Lewis could not fill...??? We all acknowledge the Chauchat had its problems.

Man, our reading/writing system in the schools seems to be really faltering... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom