Interesting 1892 Berthier Carbine

[Eaglelord17]

Hi all,

Thought I would share a interesting little 1892 Berthier Carbine I just got. A lot of mixture of new and old, well also showing the differences between numbers matching and factory original.

So the story on this example based off the serial number was made in 1914 by St. Etienne. At some point it likely got blown up/receiver damaged and that was replaced with a early (pre-1909) Chatellerault 1892 receiver (due to missing the extended recoil lug, which is very odd this example does not have). France was interesting in that they didn't consider the receiver to be the serialized part/master part, rather the barrel so the numbered parts were based off the barrel serial number and receivers were considered interchangeable when replacement was needed.

At some point post 1926 the stock was changed, to a newly made M16 style carbine stock (as noted by the sling bar and lack of clearing rod slot) possibly at the same time as the barrel, 1939, the only definitive rebuild date. The front barrel band had the standard stacking rod added to it sometime post 1927 (again only confirmed rebuild being 1939). The barrel was changed in 1939 to the later M16 style with the larger rear sight (not needed on this carbine as it lacks the handguard of a M16 carbine), and the large front post with a tiny notch in the middle for fine aiming. The barrel has been manufactured for Balle 'N' as well, which was standard for French firearms post 1932 (pretty hard to find anything in 8mm Lebel which hasn't received the 'N' on the receiver).

The magazine, bolt, bolt head, stock, and barrel all have matching serial numbers. The only parts which might actually be original to this carbine is likely the bolt, bolt head, and magazine (possibly the barrel bands but no way of actually knowing). Every other part, including the receiver, barrel, and stock was replaced at some point in time. Most the parts aren't even from the original factory this was manufactured at, the receiver and barrel are Chatellerault manufactured, not St. Etienne. Yet it is numbers matching. A 'Ship of Theseus' type question, which when you have replaced every part in something is it still what it was?

This little carbine has certainly been around the block, with three major stock repairs in it as well, on top of brazing the rear barrel band to fix it. Overall it is a neat piece of history that shows how much can be different when collecting and how little things all add to the story. Also testament to how much effort was put into keeping these firearms servicable. Now for some photos

Chatellerault receiver marking

Showing the early Berthier receiver lacking the recoil lug

1939 Chatellerault barrel

St. Etienne serial number

Brazed rear barrel band

Look at those stock repairs

Matching serial number on the stock

Bolt head serial number

Bolt body serial number

 

[Claven2]

Cool rifle. The triangular repair patch was under the bolt handle looks recent, possibly done after the rifle was surplussed. A French armorer would not have installed that with grain 45 degrees to the stock grain and it looks decently sanded flush. The patch on the left side near the rear sight was not done in France. Maybe colonial. The French would have dovetailed it in and used beech after 1927.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Cool rifle. The triangular repair patch was under the bolt handle looks recent, possibly done after the rifle was surplussed. A French armorer would not have installed that with grain 45 degrees to the stock grain and it looks decently sanded flush. The patch on the left side near the rear sight was not done in France. Maybe colonial. The French would have dovetailed it in and used beech after 1927.

Interesting information, I don’t know a bunch about repairs. This one is a good example of a bunch of them though. Some of the repairs are likely due to the non-dovetailed receiver (which is why they did that in the first place).

 

[Claven2]

I usually look at patina as an initial indicator. When I see sanding around a patch that hasn’t patinated similarly to the rest of the stock, it leads me to look more closely at things. The patch at the tang look typical of French stock repairs. When you’ve seen a bough of them, you get a sense of how they normally look.

If I had to guess, I’d say the big triangular patch was, at the least, worked on by a recent owner. Maybe the French had a patch there that started to fail and someone repaired that older repair.

The one by the sight tells me the gun likely saw colonial service where repair standards were lower. The frenchzarmorers would not have shed fillers around a sloppy patch cut. Their work is typically precise with right seams, and on a patch like that, there would be dovetailing so it can’t pop out if the glue starts to fail.

 

[Eaglelord17]

This carbine is also interesting because of the cut corners on it’s rebuild/repairs. That receiver shouldn’t be on there, by their own standards they should have dovetailed and added in the reinforcing pillar to it.

It does lend to the idea they were in a rush with it, which with a 1939 date on the receiver may have possibly meant cutting corners to try and get rifles out.

 

[Claven2]

This carbine is also interesting because of the cut corners on it’s rebuild/repairs. That receiver shouldn’t be on there, by their own standards they should have dovetailed and added in the reinforcing pillar to it.

It does lend to the idea they were in a rush with it, which with a 1939 date on the receiver may have possibly meant cutting corners to try and get rifles out.

Possibly, or it could mean it was repaired in Syria or Algeria, Côte d’Ivoire, etc where countries kept guns going well past French dominance in the regions.